Hearing in the Matter of the Measurement And

INTERNATIONALJOINT COMMISSION

HEARING IN THEMATTER OF THEMEASUREMENT AND APPORTIONMENT OF THEWATERS OF THEST. MARY AND MILK RIVERS AND THEIRTRIBUTARIES. IN THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA

UNDERARTICLE VI OF THE TREATY OF JANUARY 11, 1909, BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND GREAT BRITAIN

CHINOOK,MONTANA LETHBRIDCE,ALBERTA SEPTEMBER 15 AND 17, 1921

WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1923 INTERNATIONALJOINT COMMISSION.

C AN A DA . UNITED STATES.. UNITED CANADA. CHARLESA. MAGRATH, Chairman. OBADIAH GARDNER, Chairman. HENRYA. POWELL.K. C. CLARENCE n. cr,arx. . SIRWILLIAM H. HEARST, K. C. M. G ARCUS US A. SMITH, LAWRENCE J. BURPEE, WILLIA~I H. ShWrH, Secretary. Secretary: 11 MEASUREMENT AND APPORTIONMENT OF THE WATERS OF THE ST. MARY AND MILK R€WH AND THEfR TRIBUTARIES IN THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA.

APPEAR.\NCES. E. F. Dralre, Superintendent of Irrigatiol~, Ottawa,Canatla. B’. €I. Newell, consultingengineer, United States Reclamation Service, Washington, D. C. Hon. Joseph M. Dixon, Governor of Montana, Helena, Mont. W. J. Egleston, counsel for reclamation service of Montana, Grand Falls, Mont. C:, S. I-Ieitlel,,State engineer, Helena, Mont. George Stratton, United States Reclamation Service. E. M. Snell, United States Rerlamation Service. W. H. Sands;Chinook, Mont., representing the Water Users’ Asso- ciation of the Lower Milk River. Thomas A\. Everett, Harlem, Mont. Thomas Dignan, Ulasgow, Mont. I’rederick B. Gillette. Winsdale, Mont. Herbert C. Anderson, Irlarlem, Mont. A. W. Ziebarth, Chinook, Mont. F. E. Stranahan, Fort Benton, Mont. lJ7illiam T. Cowan, Montana. Henry (ierhartz, Shelby, hlont. Blaine Tf’erguson, representingState Agricultural College, Boze- man, Mont. Mr. OARDNI<:R. Ladies and gentlemen, if you will kindly come to ortler me will proceed with the purposes of this meeting. I want to say that the International Joint Commission has come ont hereinto your State by invitation of your governorand the memorial of your legislature, and, so far as I am personally concerned, with a feeling somewhat sceptical as to your ability to furnish any information that will show me a way out in the settlement of this knotty question, the meawlrement and apportionment of the waters of the Milk and Sk. Mary Rivers. Before this matter was taken up by the commission it appeared to me to be a very simple and easyone4 to pass upon, but immediately 1tpon the commission havingcalled a meeting for thepurpose of getting the views of different ones way hack in 1914, me found that 3 ‘2 ST. MARY AND MILK RIVERS. there was i.1 very serious and wide diflercnce of opinion 1,etween the rel)resentati\.es of the United States antl the Dominion of Canatln :IS to the meaning of Article VI of the treaty as applied to this 1JW- t icular project. The colnmission was corlfrorlted at once withthe \-cry difficult proposition of dividingsomething, when they did not ho\v whatthey were to diride. Subsequent tothat time we \\.ere notifiwl by the State Dapartnlent at Washington that in the event tlw comnlission slloultl make :L tlecision that was not in accord- :LIICC wit11 the views of tht ( hvernment the Gorcrnnlent, wo11ltl not consider itself houncl by it. So you can see at once the difficulty with r1lic.h the commission was confrontedin undertaking to make a tlecision upon a project and having advance notice that if that decision was not along certain lines it would not be recognized as official on tl!e part of the Qovernnlent. 1 ,instreferred to that lor a moment to show you that, so far as I . :LI~personally concernctl-and I think T may say the same of every oth~r~I~eruber of the c~onlrnission-we hare notloubt-certainly I IMYV no (1ouI)t for myself-about your interest in having n sufficient antl ;~l)ur~lantsupply of water for your operations here. I have no (Ioubt whatewr but \\‘hat theinterests of thoseliving across the 1)c:lmtlar.y line are just as intense as ours, but the question that the cwmmission is bothered about is just what \.vas the intent, what was the scope, and ~rhtwas the purpose of Article VI of the treaty. If yo11 can furnish us any light upon that snhject. we shall be grate- ful to you, intleetl. .I Ila1.c in my ]land I1ere a sort of suggestive program that I pre- sllnw was arrangcvl with an idea to your convenience, and I am rery gh1 to note that the first feature of this afternoon’s meeting will be an arlilress by yonr distinguished governor. STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH M.DIXON, GOVERNOR OF MONTANA. Governor VISON..Gentlemen of the International .Joint Commis- :oward the east. Many surveys were macle, but the Pxpense appcared prohibi- tory until thc time came that the Fecler:d Congress began t,o consider the reclamation act, in the passage of which I was personally concerned. l'rior t,o and during thediscussion of this measure exami- nations were nlade by the United Stat:s Geological Survey, and it was found that the most economical way of controlling the desired water supply would be by a canal heading near the mountain lakes from which St. Mary River flows and crossing the low divide to the headwaters of Milk River. Thencame in the questions which are now before you, namely, those which arise from the position of the international boundary. Thishas been drawn,as you are wellaware, without reference to the topography or streams of the country, cutting across then1 insuch way as to leave theimportant sources of waterin the UnitedStates. Thus it happensthat although the waters of St. Mary lakes can be taken eastward by canals wholly in Montana, yet the nlosteconomical method to befollowed is that whichpermits thewater to be droppedinto the head of MilkRiver to find its way across the intern.ationa1 boundary into Canada, and then parallel with this boundary for 200 miles before returning to the TJnited States. It also has been pointed out that even though the water of St. Mary River is dropped into the head of Milk River it is not necessary for thisto continue in the channelof Milk River to returnto the United States, but it can be diverted upon lands in Canada. Meanwhile the people north of the boundary have shown equal or greater interest in the use of the waters of St. Mary River. While lands were being irrigated in the Milk River Valley and projects dependentupon larger supply from St. MaryRiver .were being considered, the citizens of Canada were building a large canal system whose head has been located as near as possible to the international boundary. It has long been evident that there is not enough ~vatcrin all of the streams rombined to irrigate all the lands needing the water; hence has arisen the need of an igreement and one which will permit the large,st am1 best development of such lands as can be sup- plied. It is not necessary to discuss the negotiations, but :LS we under- stalld the matter the contentionwas raised on behalf of Montana that ST. MARY AND lMILIC RIVERS. 5 all wakrs occtlrring within its area are the property of the peoplc of the United States or of Montana, and that, as stated in effect by one of the Attorneys General of the United States, there is no servi- tude on the waters of the United States in favor of any other coun- tryand no legal obligations to permit these to flow intoanother country. Whatever the exact stat,us may be, t,his cont,ent,ionhas been overweighed by the desire to preserve international comity and good- fenowship. There is no easily applicable rule which can be made to apply to tshe exact) measurement)of such good will; therefore, as we recall the discussions as to the division of the wat,erswhich flow across theinternational boundary, these are based uponthe very simpleassumption that with no rule for guidance each party in interest should have a half of the water. There is obviously no com- pelling reason other than that, such eqnalilty in sharingis most easily understood. The point T wish to empllasixt. is tlwt l~avingtigrwd upon an equal division of these maters which flow from one country into the other, the people of Montana feel that they have made a large concession to good-fellowship and are properly insistent that they shall ultimately receive from your hands in all matters of measurement and apportionment the full one-half which belongs to the country and of which every drop is needed in the ultimate development of the dry lands. We feel.that we have been more than fair in acquiescing in an equal division of the waters which occur in the United States and flow across the boundary, and that further concessions would be unfair. Moreover, we believe that recent developments and the in- tenseinterest, displayed inthe matter demonstrate that a11 such measurements and division should follow along very simple lines of procedure and notbe complicated by attemptst,o control wat'er in one country for the benefit of the other. As time goes on we are finding that more ant1 more of our half of the water. map he usetl near the point of origin. Tt has recently become apparent that irrigation in the United Stat.,es can begin on the lands of the Blackfeet Indian Reservation almost from the time that thewater is takenout of St. MarRiver, and can be continued t>hroug;hthe reservation by an" all-13 merican canal," turning south- wardIn the TJnited States,to the lands along Cut Bank Creek. These are now partly included in the Cut Rank irrigation district. To th,e east are other lands needing water. That is to say, it is possible,although not, economicallydesirable, todivert the ordinary flow of St. Mary River to the dry lands of Montana, not merely in the Milk River Valley but in thatof Marias River, thus avoidingits passage through Canada. The mattera to which I hope to direct your attention are in part. new, in the sense that they have become prominent recently because of the new developments and need of care in the distribution of the waters of t,hestreams flowing across th'e State boundaries. They emphasize the importance of an early and positive decision by you of the questionswhich have been brought to your attention. Fur- ther delay indeciding these questions affect as neverbefore the formationand activity of irrigationdistricts which include thousands of acres of irrigable land in Montana. Such dela is holding back the creation of opportunities for homes for sel P-supporting citizens. 6 ST. MARY AhTD MILK RIVERS. To us the questions at issue appear to be simple and direct. We have not only agreed to let our neighbors in Canada have half the water naturally flowing across tb! border but, more than this, -vve have been generous and have acqulesced in letting Canada have first opportunity to take. from the steadyflow of St. Mary River a portion of its half of the water available, leaving to Montana first choice in the less dependable Milk River; but our neighborsseem to wish eyen more than tbis half so generously conceded by us. There is a limit, however, even to the most altruistic of acts, and that limit must be set and rigidly observed. “ Good fences make good neighbors,” and it is for you to designate clearly and carefully these limitations, SO that progress maybe made within these lines, utilizing to the greatest advantage for both countries the mat,ers which are thus tlefinecl. The contentions of our Canadian brothers, as we understand then:. amount practically to setting nsitle the terms of the present treaty regarding the waters flowing across the boundary ant1 rewriting tlv provisions of theexisting treaty. As we untlerstandthe matter. there are ttlro contentions definitely recognized 1I)y you; one that the qual division of the waters applies not to those flowing across the boundary: but to all of the waters which may be found within thc toatersherls of the two rivers, even thoup11 the ownership and control of these have never been brought into question. Anothercontention apparently raised since arguments were presented to you is that the ineqnality shall be further emphasized by giving Canada the priority of 500 second-feet or portions thereof md notcountin? this in the eq11a1 division,but dividing equally the waters in excess of the prior clnims. In each of thesecases me regard this :IS an attemptpractically torewrite the terms of thetreaty and as efforts toinduce your commission to go beyond the plain duty of measurement and appor- tionmentaccording to the untlerstanrling re:rched in theexisting treaty. Anotherproposition relatively new to us has been brought forward informally, to’the effect that as the best storage sites are in the United StatJes there mightbe some provision by whlch the waters to be used in Canada could be held in the United States. I think I voice the -feeling of our citizens that any such arrangement will be highlyobjectionable because it willbring about complications whichmight prove extremely obnoxious. Simplicityand eqnd divisionwill tend to promoteand maintain good feeling between thecountries, but any complicated arrangement which can not be easily understood and put into effect, withoutargument, must in- evitablylead to misunderstanding.The very fact that upward of six years have elapsed since the first hearings on what to us seems a very simply matter indicates in itself that other questions more complicatedmight consume indefinite time, with resulting irrita- tion to our citizens. If it should be shown that water can be held in the United States byreservoirs built by the Reclamation Service, then such waters mi ht be sold directly to irrigation districts in Montana or Canada nn8 er some simple, definite business agreement, avoiding what we most fear, namely, the interposition of commissions or committees with their opportunities for debate. ST. MARY AND MILK RIX’EBS. 7 Xven if! all the waters are conserred and tlividecl there will not, be enough for rival claimants, and under these conditions, as abow indicated, we anticipateendless misunderstanding unless the most simpleand direct business dealings are adopted in this difficult matter. As matters now stand, there is really only one importantpoint of division of thc? x.nters, namely, thnt where a portion of St. [Mary water is taken across the tlivide to the head of Milk River. In the measurement and dirision of this water it is necessary to anticipate by clays or v~eekswhat will be the prolmhle condition 5)f the weather o~xrestensiyc tracts of country. ,lftrrwater is tnrnedinto the St. Mary (.”anal to go to the Milk River Valley, upward of two weeks may elape 1:eEore It gets to the lands where it is needed, ancl during this two weeks there may be estrewe changes in temperature and ralnfall. Even tomeasure and apportion water at this one point thcre are many complications to be considered. If othcr points of division,especially with reference tostored waters, Irere to lx included. it is readily conceirable that more un- cert:iinties wiI1 arise. Thispoint is offered for your consideration. not with any reflection upon the ability or interest of any 1)ody of 111cx conccrned Imt toindicate frarlkly arlcl frwly thc Feeling of the great hotly of citizens whom I am attempting to wpresent. Ap1)reciating Chat it, is ~OIWdesire, 21s at first st:rtctl, not to hear argument of cor~nsc>llor any country or interest, I havc endeavored to present in t’his statement, in the simplest form possible, my con- ception of the desires of the people of Montana. These are summed 11p in the words prompt, simple, delinite decision, permitting action hy our citizensleading to the full ultimate use of cTery drop of water which falls in the State or which naturally flows into it, and ‘It the same time dealing fairly with our neighbors. I hope that before this trip, with thisnewer viewpoint obtained at close range ancl witha full desire on the part of all the commissioners-and I have I:O mental rescr\-ittion whatever, gentlemen ; each man on this commission is inspirctl only by the one spirit of trying to solve this question equitallly. In corning down this morning I hac1 somc informal (liscnssion with one lnembcr of the com- m~ssion. I hope that some of the questionsthere raised may be hroupht int;o fuller frllition. 1 know thc conhtion of some of the attorneys that have argued before this commission that the nationals on one side mnst assume a certain position and that the nationals on the other side, imbued with a possible latent patriotism that may direct their mental processes more than they imagine, may lead us into the dangerof Trmoming deadlocked. I hope this mill not happen. The suggestion thatif the commission cannot determine this question it must be rcferrecl to some official tribunal by the Govern- mentsat Ottawa and Washington does notappeal to me. Where coulcl Canada ancl the 7Jnited States find a tribunal that could hear, and determine these questions with the same degree of equit~7as this trik)unal composetlof threeformer Members of the United States Senate and three distinguished members of the Canadian Govern- ment, who have the facts and who have nothing but the kindliest personal and international feelings? As I said to one of the members of the commission this morning when the question was suggested, “If you gentlemen fail, it means 8 ST. MARY AND MILK RIVERS. that Canada and the Vnited Stateshave got to turn to South America or. to Europe for the selec,tion of a tribunal. No citizen or national within the British Empire and no citizen of the United States could .;it onsuch n tribunal. n-onld have to turnto a tribunal whose language we could notspeak and whocould not understand us ,except through interpreters. I think it would be a fatal conclusion of this matter if these six men can not arrive at some positive and fair and equitable division of the waters of these two rivers.” I have fullfaith that you can. Therivers are interlocked. The spipit of that treaty is .that the two eountries shall determine the most economical and efficient useof theirintermingled waters. Surely the .engineers can work out some solution thnt is fair and equitable and that will carry with it the unanimous recommendation of these six men. Suppose we do hare to go outside of the fixed letter of the law? Suppose you gentlemen in arriving at a solution have to write in possibly n new section not authorized and refer it to Ottawa and ’ Washingtonfor ratifimtion. A unanimousreport from this commission will carry full conviction at both Ottawa and Washington. There is no question about that. They know nothing about it. YOU do. In the name of a hundredyears of peaceand amity between these great nations, in the nameof the friendship that has got to prevail and will prevail, every man along the Milk River and in Mon- tana sincerely hopes and prays before you gentlemen that the Milk River ( nestion 11.111 forever be a thing of the past. I thank you. Mr. ~ARDNER.I do not know whether it is the intention of those who arranged the order of exercises here to have the speakers follow in the rotation wiven on the program, hutI will venture to call as the next speaker &. Thomas Dignan, of Glasgom. If there is any other order of procedure that you prefer, we shall be glad to follow it. Mr. DIQNAN.It is myunderstanding, Mr. Chairman,that Mr. Thomas A. Everett, of Harlem,was to follow the governor. Is Mr. Everett present? Governor DIXON.I wish to say, gentlemen, that Mr. Everett formerly represented these counties both in the House and afterwards in the, Senateof Montana, and that he has lived herefor 30 years. STATEMENT OF MR. THOMAS A. EVERETT, OF HARLEM, MONT. Mr. EVERETT.Mr. Chairman, I would like to know what the commission wants to hear from me. As I understand it, I am to represent, in my humble way, the farmersof the Milk River Valley, being one of them; but I have not had a chance to consult vith any of the gentlemenwho have the program in charge nor with the commission. Of course. I wouldlike to enlightenthe commission inany way that 1 can as a farmer of the Milk River Valley, and I mould like to know exactly what you wish to hear from the farmershere. . Mr. GARDNER.That is a pretty hard question to submit to me. We want to extract fromyou all the information you have. Mr. EVERETT.That mould take a long time, unless I know exactly what kind of information yon want. Mr. GARDNER.Well, I mill say that we wonld like to have whatever informationyou may bepossessed of that wouldbe of any materialassistance to the commission inenabling it to come to n decision on the apport,ionmentof these waters undcr ArticleVT of the ST. MARY AND MILK RIVERS. 9 treaty. Outside of that, as the crux of your argument, I am milling that you should exercise some. latitude and wander somewhat. afield, if you please. Hut that is the one thing that we are mostly interested in-the meaning of Article VI of the treaty. Mr. Evmmw. If the gentlemen of the commission please, is it my opinion as to the constructionof the tpeatq that you want ? Mr. ~ARDNICR.Well, yes; although 1 give you advance notice that it will be considered for whatit is worth. Mr. Ev1~1wrr.I think I was one of the gentlemen who was influen- tial, in a certain way, in getting the first preliminary survey made fromthe St. Maryinto Milk River. 1 had been over that divide between the St. Mary and the Milk River, andit occurred to me that it was entirely feasible to turn the water of the St. Mary River into Milk River. That was before the first appropriation was macle for a tcntatiw sln-vey todetermine the facts. l‘ha.t was beforethere were’ any appropriations of the waters of the St. Mary in C:Lnatla or in the United Statesfrom Milk River. The tre:tty C:LIIIC :L long time after that. Yon .willrenle1nbt.r tllat the St. Mary project was startedlong before the t,renty. It, never ocwrmd1-0 11s in the Milk River Valley t,hat, there would ever be any contluversy over the waters. We unclerstood that. between this country :tncl Mexico at le& it had been settled that the water rising in a country belonged t.o that country if it, desired to utilize it, and that no other eountq, had :my clailllupon it. I do not think that that h:~s~wr Ireen ol1:~nged. But we fo~~ndthat there \vas aphysical difficultjy in getting the St. Mary water into the Milk R,iver without letting it l’un through Canada. It couldbe done, but it would be veryespensivc; and it mould be expensiveenough-nearly all tho .settlers co111cl stand-even if allowed to run down the Milk River. Ancl so o11r (iowrmrlent took it LIP with the Canadian Government to get. pernlission to run this St,. Mary w:rter down the Milk River through C:L~R&L,not that me believed that tho Canadians ever llad any right io tllc wnler ; vc never felt that they had ~1 right to thewater. Tllr, part8ies who drew up thattreaty consult,ed with the f:tnners of t,his valley frequently, :tnd I was one of a committee appointed by our farmers from this valley to consult with them. It was finally decided in that treaty, which you have before you, that the w:tt,ers of t,he Milk and St. Mary Rivers were to be divided equally between talletwo countries. But there never was a question in the lninds of the cornmissioners from this country or in the minds of the sett,lers in t)llis valleythat that water was to include any waters except international waters. ?\Tow,as I understand the controversy that has since been raised, it . is this: Is that; treaty to den1 only with international waters, or is it to den1 withwaters entirely inland, waters that never cross the bonndnry and 11e~7ercould by any physical means be carried across t,he bountl:try unless yon ship it across in cars or haul it across in trneks ! We never tlreamcd that such waters as that would ever come into (~rntrovwsy; and when the t,reaty stipulated that the maters of the t)n-orivc~s would he divided, TVB naturally construed that, to mean tile illtcrn:kt ion:11 waters of the two ~aivers,or waters which if allowed ’ to ~IIIItheir nnt;ur:rl course would cross the international boundary :lt sonic point. Since then we understand that) it is the contention of 0111’ Canndian brothers ,that the two streams are to be measured at 10 ST. MARY AND MIIJIC RIVERS. ST. MARY AND MILK RIVERS. 11 not c~onstrueil in that way, in my judgment it mighl; just as well be thrown overboard-we have no treaty ; the Canadians have it all. . We have built great storage reservoirs on St. Mary; me have built an expensive canal and syphon across the river; we have built es- pensive works in the Milk River Valley that are absolutely thrown away, and we are back where we started ; they have the water and we have nothing, because our reservoirs wonltl he of no use to us; our lands would be of no use to us, and me might 21s xell quit.. That is exactly the way we fee1 about it. Another contention, I understand, is about the prior rights of the two rivers, the St. Mary River and the Milk River; that, they want. their prior right, two-thirdsof the natural flow of the St. Mary, antl we will take a prior .right of two-thirds of the natural flow of the Milk River during the irrigationseason, ancl that then the remainder of the waters are to be divided equally. But as we understand the treaty, and as we understood it at that time, those prior rights are only for the purposes of using the water when no more is being contained in the streams. When the streams increase their flow until there is more water, then the mater is to be absolutelydivided equally between the two countries. That construction of the treaty we believe to be absolutely just. We helieve that the treaty is quite plain in that respect. We do not believe that Milk River should be measured at its mouth. We believe that if the MilkRiver had been theheadwaters of the Missouriand the St. Mary River had been the headwaters of the Saskatchewan; in other words, if the Milk River had been called the Milk River to the Gulf of Mexico and the St. Mary River had been called the, St. Mary to Hudson Bay, the language in the treaty would havebeen exactly the same,because you would naturallymfer that nothing but international waters were to be discussed in the making of that treaty. Thc members of the, commission thatdrew that treaty ~vouI(1 nat11rally infer that nothing but international waterswere to lw cor)- siderctl. When nllr Congress antl the Canadian Parlixment. or what- t’vw body over tlwr ratified the treaty. they would naturally infer that nothing I)nt international waters were under tliscnssion. I CR~ not see for tho life of me how anyme c:olxlcl construt. tJhe txaty in any other way; and we never dreamed in this valley tjhnt the (pustion wo~~l!le\~c~r I)(? miset1 in any other ~uyor we certainly would never l~:>.-,-egone alltxtl with nll the trouble and tho espensr ant1 the years (dwaiting to !:et :L tlivision of the water in xny othw way. 1 tllink if thc gentlemen of the commission knew this conntry as n-c lmow it. knew thc we of the water as we know it, hew the absolute nrcwsity of mater 21s .we, know it, and knew the unstability and the III-.PI~~~:SIWSSo-f the flootl wratars o-f Milk River 21s we know them tjhey ~voultlrealize, as we realize, that the idea of measuring all of those waters is absolutely ridiculous, absolutely impracticable, and 1vnnIcl :Il)soll1tely clrivc every settlor out of Milk River Valley. We.triccl irrigating here for a long time when \TTR had the whole flow of MilkRiver. We had all that came fromCanada and all that came -from the TJnited States. We had half of the water of the St. Alary River and the Milk River treated as one stream from their months; we had all of that before we ever undertook the St. Mary and Milk Rivers projects. Before our Government ever touched it or ever came intothe ralley we had all of that water. We tried to 12 ST. MARY AXD MILK RTVIWS. utilize it: we ntilized all we could of it; and we were starved out.. We had onlyabout 25,000 acres in the wholevalley out of 200,000 . acres, and we could not put another acre antler irrigation bectluse we had no more water. NOW, I understand as they ant to construe t,lle treat,y that is all the w1ter they want t,o give LIS, t,lle same watt.1* we :Ilways l~aclhefore tl~e~eever \vas a treat,y. It was OLW people that ngitated tlle treat,y hrcanse we wanted an additional water supply for MilkIZiver Valley. We wmtrd the right to turn theSt. Mary down tile Milk Iiiycr Val- le)-. That was the reason for thc treaty. Mr. CL~RK.Will it disturb you if I ask a question at tllis point? >%l’. EVERETT. Not at dl. Mr. CIAI~K. Dwing the irrigdtion season wl1nt is tlw n:ltnlxl flow of the St. Mary River as it, crosses the bounclary? Mr. 13v1~;rts~~.Do 1011nlem the avcb~-agefor >I nnlnlwr of y’ars? Mr. Cr,imIc. Dnring thc irrign t‘1011 season. Mr. I~;v~~TFT.I have not, the fig111~sjust at 1)wsvnt. ’I’ll(: 12ccl:1ma- 1-ion Service has them. I haw them at, horn(., hut 1 11;~r.t. not them hero, and I could not, just say. 11.11.. CLARK.It, has becn a littlc tlilticult to gvt, :In ttccwr:ttv cstinlatc. MI*. JhmmT. Mr. Nrwrll 01’ Mr. Stratton of the Itcc1:~nlation Scwicc! can give yon that) inform:ltion nluclr I)cdter illan I can; I)nt 1 lalow it is many, many times the nnt,ur:Ll flow of Milk Itirrr during the irrigation season. Mr. CLARK.I think theis no qwstion :\l)out, that in tile mind of anyone. Mr. T~XRICTT.I have found tllat about, Edf tllc tiwe the natural How of Milk River during the irrigation season wtls nothing. Mr. CLA41:Ii. I think there is no questiou al)out the relative flow, 1)11t, there is a question in my mind as to tlw orclin:u.y flowof the St. Mary River. Perhaps it will be brought ol1t later on. Mr. EVERETT. Yes; you can get that information from those gentlemen. But I do know that the St. Mary in the spring of the year is :I comparatively insignificant stream as comparutl to the Milk River. The Milk River, when the snow goes out in the spring, is a mighty river for about 30 days and then it is done for the year, unless some extraordinary rains come after that. It is a river that you absolutely can not depend upon to irrigate with except through storage. It is a most discouraging river, as my friends from Chinook :mtl Harlem know from 25 to 30 years’experience. It isabsolutely useless to try to farm by using the natural flow of Milk River to irrigate the lands. Are there any other questions? Mr. GARDNER.Bow lon have you been operating your farm lands by irri ation from Milk &ver ? Mr. ~VEIIETT.I have been operating my farm for 31 years, but not all of the time from Milk River; I have been operating about 26 or 27 years from Milk River. hfr. GARDNER.During that period of 27 years how often n-ew yon short of water? Mr. EVERETT.I should say that we were short all of the time with the exception of three or fonrpears during that period. Dnring three or four wet summers we had plenty of water; all of the rest of the time we were short, although not entirely without water. We ST. MARY AND MILK RTVERS. 13 dtvays gota portion of the crop;, but lie were always short before the irrigation season was over, with the exception of three or four years. Mr. GARDNER.Did that condition prevail throughout the whole valley, as far as you know? Mr. EVERETT.Pes. Our canal wasone of the first in the valley. There were three or four canals that were in practically the same condition. We frequently divided the mater. Mr. GARDNER.I think that is all. JYe th:rnk you rery much, Mr. Everett. I would suggest that some one here indicate the order in which the bpeabers appear. You can do it very much better than I can, because you are better acquainted. Mr. Walter Sams. I think you might follow the program as we ]1a\.e it here. Perhaps there are some that wish to respond. Mr. GARDSI~X. Mr. Dignan. STATEMENT OF MR. TITOMAS' DIGNAN, OF GLASGOW,MONT. (kntlemen of the International .Joint Commission and gentlemen of the MilIc Hiver Valley and of Montana: Taking the standpoint of a farmer in reference to the division of the waters of this Milk Itiver controversy by one who has lived in this valley for nearly 20 years, mho has been vitally interested in its development, who has \wtclled its progress from the very inceptionof the reclamation work in this part of Montana; who is vitally interested in the treaty, who has studied its provisions, and we lwl reavhed the conclusion that the question of the international waters hat1 been settled, and I wish to assure yon when this proposition came up again as to tllc intrrpre- tation placedupon the treaty, we farmers of this valley mm: 1)c- wildered. We finally reached the conclusion that it was impossible for us to understand the English language. Wc thought it, was so plain that it was iltlpossihle for anyone to misrmtlerstand its meaning, but we fintl that we were wrong. We find thatwhen great specialists and when the mostcminent lawyers of bothcountries vommencecl to discnss it, the impressionhas been conxyed to us that we did not understand the English language. But, as farmers, we for one moment never imagined that there was any discussion only on international waters. It wasimpossible for us to compre- hend that the streams east of the so-called Vandalia diversion dam, whichis nearly 50 ndc,s west of .the mouth of the Milk River- that came in from the north and south, and some of it during the flood season, during th'e run-off of the snow*water-were to be measured and taken into consideration when it was utterly impossible to, utilize the waters in any way, shape, or ma,nner under the present construction scheme of the irrigation practiced in this valley or State. It appealedto us, furtheras ridiculous that all of thestrenms north and south of the Milk kiver from the international boundary over to the Missouri Valley had been prior appropriations by settlers ; that there had been dams constructed. This water had heen utilized for many years, at least by farmers and stockmen. before the Milk River project was ever thought of or dreamt of, and on many of thestreams there are adjudicated water rights-adjudi- cnted in the early nineties, 1894 and 1895-in this dley and tributariesto the river. Then, behold our bewilderment when we have 14 ST. MARY AND MILK RIVERS. been notified that all of the streams 'that the farmers in this valley and its tributaries have owned by prescription, owned by comply- ing withthe water rights of this State-andsome of themhave ut,ilized themfor more than 30 years-do notbelong to 11s; that theybelong to Canada. That is one thing,among the many: that we can not understand; and that is why we insist that the waters of this country belong to 11s. We are willing to do anything 11-e can to assist Canada with any water that lye (lo not need for clevelop- ment. But what is more fearful to us, mllat we view to-daywith great danger--we are only on the eve of development of this vd- ley-is that we have only got to the point that we are able and in a position to utilize this mater. We have been waiting for this water for many years. We did not know whether me mere going to have our ditch work and our reservoir constructed so that it can be used; but about four years ago at Glasgow .we commenced to receive some water. We have a unit there of approximately 25,000 acres, and it isnearly flat. We are able to receive water-in fact, over nearly everyacre of the 25,000 acreswater can be delivered, as 1 understand, next year. On the eve of our propose'cl development, when we were ready tQ go out and cultivate our lands, reclaim them from their wild state, we are confronted with the great problem that we have no water. We have been working 20 years, as 1may say, to receive the waters. We are peculiarlysituated. There, are vast arcas, on each side of the Milk River T~alley-that is, Prom the Milk River Valley. north to the internat,ional boundary-and for more than 100 miles south of the Milk River are vast tracts of land than can never be farmed. It ispractically only suitable for grazing purposes. There is no bettergrazing land in the entire country than we haveon those P(Treat strips thatcan not be used for farming-that is, for dry farm- * . ing or anyother system-and theresult is that in years past there have been large herds of cattle and sheep grazing upon thern. We have great areas of summer range, lmt, the problem is to secure su.ffi- cient hay and feed to winter our cattle. We had reached the point . where we felt that, that problem mas being solved. Only two years ago thisState spent approximately $40,000,000 for hay and feed adone to bring our herds through the severe winter. We were look- inv forward to the t,ime when this entire valley could be put into alFalfa, into corn. It is a recognized fact that the best alfalfa land in the entire country is in t,his Milk River Valley. There are,nlany places in the South where they can raise a larger number of crops" seven, eight, and even more per senson-but' we can raise here from three to four (never less than three and oftentimes1 four) crops, and in the four crops we can harvest nearlg as much per acre as they canon the' southern projects or any otherprojects in the entire country. With this condition and with the view of placing thls Val- ley into feed, this problem of feeding our catt,le and sheep we felt almost was solved. We, were looking forward to the day when this valley would become a great feeding station. We pledged our land, every foot' of it ; we have pledged our credit ; in other words, we have entered into a contract. with our Governnlent and pledged the entire acreage that can be brought under irrigation in this valley for the payment, of it, and to-day me are, confronted with the problem that wecan not havewater. If we cannot get thewater, as Senator P ST, MARYAND MILK RIVERS. 15

'Evemtt said, we might just as well move out. There is nothing left for 11s butour indebtedness tq pay. We have labored for years. As I say, we have put up our credit; and many of the men have gone out and dug the ditches with their teams, as they did severa,l years ago before the present systemof construction was inauouraked. To-day we must quit this, providing the interpretation as pkced on and asked for by the Canadian Government be accepted. We are looking forward for nlany years of development, and it will take many years to develop this valley and bring it up to the point of a peak production. Perhaps we could get along for a few years with what water we could get fro111the Milk R,iver by con- structing additional storage reservoirs, but when the time comes for intensifiedfarming, when every foot of this valleyand its tributaries can be put under cultivation, then we hare got to have this nrater or otherwise we might just as well quit today and not go further. I do not wish to continue further. Mr. GARDNER.May I ask yon a question right there: As ~OLIare :tware, during the final settlement of this question, the commission has issued tentative orders from year to year for the ntilization of thewater of those twostreams. What I wouldlike to inquire abont is: Has the supply of water that you have had in this valley during, say, the past three years, been ample for your purposes! Mr. DIGNAN.The supply, I might say, during the season that the ditches were operating-the ditches to begin with were new, and the season was short for irrigating, because the ditches would leak, and seepage, with the result I do not believe that all got the water that theyvished to. Rut the problem is, a very small acreage WRS irrigated during the past three years, and if the entire acreage now that can be irrigated is irrigated, then fromhencefort.h it will be absolutely necessary to utilize the entire amount of water. I might say that for three years, or two years in fact, this project has been under construction, and the Government has been putting in the laterals, and it was only up till this year that the so-called Glasgow unit was in position to receive mater on nearly the entire part of it-that is 25,000 acres. Mr. GARDNER.And that 25,000 acresembraces what proportion of your entire project Z Mr. DTGNAN.The entire project vi11 embraceapproximately 200,000 acres if we can get the water. Mr. GARDNER.That includes the whole stretch of the valley ? Mr. DIGNAN.Yes. But up untilnow we have been irrigating com. paratively only a small partof the land that?cpn be irrigated. Mr. GARDNER.To what extent could you expLnd beyond your present usa.ge of water without additional storage't Mr. DIGNAK.It is necessary to construct storage to conserve our flood waters. In other Tvords, the flood water runs off here in March and April and is of very little value as a general irrigation proposition, except only for hay; but for alfalfa and other crops we must have opportunity to mature the crops in June, July, and August. Mr. CLARK.Where coultl you constructstorage on Mill; River besides. away up at thehead! Mr. DTGNAN.There is Chain Lakes, which will protect this part west of here, and then storage on Bearer Creek, which the project '500(r"23"-2 I 16 ST. MARY AND MlLK RIVERS. has under consideration, and then thereis, I understand, stora,' (*e at other places. It is necessary. Of course, I couldnot say as to the engineering problem. Mr. CLARK.Could sufficient storage capacity be provided on the Milk River to satisfy the needsof the Milk River Valley? Mr. DIGNAN.I do not think so. In my own judgment>, I do not think it. Of course, that is an engineering problem. I presume the, officers of the Reclamation Service are able to give that information. Mr. POWELL.Looking at the ma on the wall, where does the irrigable land, movingupstTeam, end?? Mr. DIGNAN.As I understand, on this map the yellow is the land that can be irrigated. Mr. POWELL.Above that it is not irrigated! Mr. DIGNAN.The yellow-colored area there is the area that can be irrigated in this valley. Mr. CLAI~IL.Of course, you know nothing of theengineering prol)lems ? Mr. DIGNAN.No. Mr. POWELL. There are one or two questions I would like to ask you, saggwtetl by an article I saw in a paper this morning abont a meeting held down :it I\Ialta, and the general icleu prevailing in that lnectinp was that lrnder the r6gime of the commission or, at any rate, dwing tllc last ~'UWyears, thitt Cumtcla llad taken nll the water out of the Milk River. Tllnt, yon know. is an crtire mistake. MY. DIGNAN.'L'llat is not true. Mr. POWXJ,. Canada llas not had a foot of the wwtei. of the Milk Rirer for the last four or five years. Mr. DIGKAN.It is my understanding that Canada has been ntiliz- ing about 1,000 feet of tho water of the^ St. Mary. Mr. POWELL. 1 :uu spe&ing of the Milk.Canada has used no water of the Milk River at all during the last four or five years. Xr. DIGNAW.Ofcourse, in Milk Xiver inthe irrigating season there woulcl not be any water to use. Mr. I'own~r,. I know. The additional water that you want you wish to draw from the St. Mary River? Mr. DICNBN.The St. Mary River construction is carried from the St. Mtuy over to the Milk River. Mr. Pow~m,.What quantity of that water in the shape of second- feet of the flow would you require? Mr. DIGNAN.Well, now, T would not be in a position to state that. Mr. POWELL.If you are not, I will not go intoit. Mr. DIGNAN.I am not an engineer. I presume Mr. Stratton here or Mr. Newel1 can give you that information. Mr. CLARK.That representation on tthe map in blue, is t,hat Chain Lake Reservoir ? Mr. DIGNAN.Proposed Chain LiLke. Mr. GAKDNER.Mr. Fred Gillette. STATEMENT OF MR. FREDERICK B. GCILLETTE, OF HINSDALE, MONT. Mr. GILLETTE.Gentlemen, I was in the legislative assembly last winter, and I was responsible for the introductioln of the resolution which has, perhaps, had some effect in the bringing here of this ST. MARY ANI) MITAK RIVERS. 17 18 ST. MARY AND MILK RIVERS. STATEMENT OF MR. A. W. ZIEBARTH,'DF CHINOOK, MONT. * Mr. ZIEBARTH.I do not intend to say anything, because I could not say anything but what has already been said on the subject. However, I merely want to call the attention of the commission to this map. This is a map preparerl by theReclamation Servit.e, I think. I (lo not know whether you all understand just what it represents. Thishere [inclicating] is theinternational boundary. This heavy line I indicating]. around the outsicle represents the Milk River drainage basin. This in yellow I indicating-\represents t.he 189,900 acres of irrigdble land in the Milk River Valley. Mr. CLARK. How much of that is under irrigation n0\\7? Mr. ZIEUARTH.Water, I understand, is obtainahle for ahout 80,000 acres of that at thistime. This here I indicating-]is the Milk River. That I.inclic.wting1 is the Chain Lakes Reservoir, ant1 over here lindicaatingl, which is the dark green line, represents the St. Mary drainage b'asin. Here I indicating 1 is St. Mary hkoand st. Mary Canal crossing the St. Mary River at this point [intlicating], entering the north bank of Milk River at this point l~indicat,ing], and from there east flows into Can- ada, ard Milk River runs through Canada for a distance of about 214 miles, I believe. The purpose of preparing this map was to give the commission a better understanding of its physical features there, and our purpose largely was, of course, to show that. the large proportionof the drainage area of Milk River was in t,he TJnited State,s and consequently are TJnitecl States waters. Mr. GARDNEB. That yellow tract on the upper corner of the map is irrigable land in Canada? Mr. ZIEBARTH.Land now.irrigated, 1 understand, in Canada. Mr. MAGRATH. Did I understand you to say 189,000 acres as to . which the wateris' available? Mr. ZIEBARTH.Well, the ditches are complete for that much land. ' T (lo not think there is water sufficient to irrigate all that land, but the ditches, I believe, are completefor that much land. Mr. MACRATH.That is totalarea that is beingirrigated in the valley Z Mr. ZIEIIARTH.Yes. Mr. MAORATI-I.And that water that is ,zvailable is directly taken from the St. Mary Lakes now? Mr. ZTEBARTH.Pes. The Reclamation Service people are here and ('an giro yon more information. Mr. Stratton has a11 that. Mr. CLARK.'Where is Chinook located on that map? Mr. Z1enan.r~.Chinook is the town in large figures here. Mr. GBRIINER. Can you tell what the length of the Milk Rirer is if it was drawn in a straight line! I Mr. ZmnanTrr. Yes. 1 have notpot that. Jlie have it. 1 believe, in this booklet that was prepared by the Reclamation Service. Mr. Po\mr,r,. What is the length and what is the breadth of those rectanglcs on your map-miles each way? MI.. ~11~;1~\1~I'€1.Those are townships, G miles each way. Mr. GAIWNICR.Mr. Charles Ling. of Ha,vre. Mr. SANDS.Mr. Ling, I believe, is also at, the State fair to-day. MI-.GARDSER. Mr. F. E. Stranahnn, Fort Benton. ST. MARY AND MILK R,IVERS. 19

STATEMENT OF HIR. I?. E. STRANAHAN, FORT BENTON, MONT. , Air. STIIANAEIAN.(ientlemen 'of Che 1nternktion:Ll Joint Commis- sion, I do not desire to become tiresome 01' to hre you by repeating what may have been saidhere to-clay or wllat you mayhave heard , in yr;m past. an(l I may not I)e aide to actcl much. I have only to make a few observations. 1 was born in the far West, and have never been out of it. I know a great cleal of the problems of t,ho \Vest,. I know t,llat, I-J(P~OWyou gentlemencan fully apprecite the situation, from wllich you can IlIalco a fair clecision, it ought to be that you llrigllt know of the science of irrigation. To our shame, be it said, Gover~~~r,the great. St:Lt,e, of Mont,:ula fails in her agricultural colleges or elsc\\~l~reto teach this wonderfl~lscience of irrigation. A great lengtll of time go ,hhimcdes usctl to raise mater from the rivers md apply it, to the 1:~nd;und eversince Archimedes irrigation Ilns hen a science on the face of the earth, :tnd yet there is nu collt~geillat 1 Icnow of any\vllere tlltlt teaches this science so vitally irllprtant to the West. 111 order for you gentlemen, in my estimation, to cloternline what that treaty means you must put yourselves ~LSnear as may be, men- tally, in the positio_n_of those wlm framed tllat, treaty--to take to yourselves,if you can, theinte,nt of it.s franlers. IVe may :mume that they illtended to form a contract, ltnowiug what was necessary to irrigate the lands. We who know by experience what is necessary for irrigation know that we must have perennially dependable, serviceable, anel controlledwaters. Wo must, know thatat the proper season when the water lrlust he applied to the lam1 to raise our cro1)s that we weprivileged to go to the head gateanel open it and let loose ZL snficient amount of water to irrigate those lands. A gyd many years ago I l~cla large f:tmily of litt lo sons, nncl I llad vlsions of raising them in the farm lifefollowed by their antes.. tors for 200 yeus in the United States. I purcllasecl :L far111 40 miles 1,olow in this valley. Those sons to-day have been oducatecl in agricultural colleges, but we have been obliged to abandon that beaut,lful farm clown the valley, I think the most beautiful landI ever saw. No landscape gardener could have laid out the lam1 .with greater pre- cision; but we have been obliged to abandon those lands and abandon for the time being the hope of irrigating them; and those sons are now grown men and operating other farms in this State. \\'e havethis farm [pointingto map] of 320 acres down here, just at the headquarters of the Dodson Dam. Here comes a flood- water stream down from the North, butit is not B dependable stream. The waters are not controllable, and from long experience I 1mow the enormous cost of building up an irrigated farm in the West; and the conditions are such there from those flood-water streams that no privateenterprise could possibly stand the expense and stand the hazard by spending enormous sums of money in the attempt to control the waters. In my judgment, those in that portion can not be impounded,and it is impossible to controlthem. It is useless to spend a. large sum of money to attempt to irrigatethose lands from those flood waters. In ordinary seasons the flow will not last longer than perhaps 10 days. It is true that there havebeen appropriations on those streams, water-right filings, but that was for the purpose of catching small portions of the water and irrigating the natural . 20 ST. MARY AND MILK RIVERS. grassesindigent to the country-the wildgrasses that grow there. YOIImill appreciate the fact that it ~yould be impossible to till those lands, plow them up and put yotw dikes there, let your water flo~ (]own when those grounds are frozen, all of your plowed lanh and hold and impound your waters there on plowed land. It would be impossiblr to irrigate in that way. Tf you can appreciate then, gentlemen, what was in the minds of tllose 1)eople when they created that contract; whether they intendecl then to .divide the perennially dependable serviceable waters, and if they tlitl, then we nlust have those perenninl waters divided without td~inginto consideration these uncontrollable waters. It seems to me that the contention of our brethren from the North is WI~much like the old American story of two partners who went out, hunting. There was to he R divisitin of the spolls of the chase, an eqml division, when they returned at night. Whenthey arrived home thatnight they found that one had broughtin a crow andthe other had brought in a turkey. Now, thesepartners-one was white and the other was Intlian-and the white nlan said to the ‘Indian, “ You take the crow and I will keep the turkey, or you keep the crow and I will take the turkey.” the Indian said to the white man, “Why, sir, you don’t talk turkey to me at all.”Now, thecrow is representedby the Milk Kirer and the turkey by St. Mary, and we, if you gentlemen please. are supposed to occupy the position of the Indian. Mr. (~ARDNRR. The last gentleman whose name I have here is Mr. Sprague, Box Elder. Mr. SANDS.Mr. Spra ue has kindly consented to letSenator Cowan take his place. Afr. Cowan is president, I believe, of another system on the ”arias. STATEMENT OF SENATOR WILLIAM T. COWAN,MONTANA. Mr. COWAN. (hntlemen of the Inteuniltionnl Joint (2oIrlnlission. thishonor has been rather unexpectedlyconferred upon me, aprl * I imaginethe information I have to impart from the talk that I tlesire to make will perhaps be more pleasant to myself than to the members of the Milk River Valley who live here, and may not contain very much information which may enlighten yon in regartl to this question. I I remember 16 or 17 years ago, when T was younger than I am at present, coming down to Milk River Valley and joining the Milk River Irrigation Association, with the hopes that the people up in ourparticular territory wouldparticipate in the activities of the Reclamation Service. It happened I lived up in what is calletl the Big Sandy Valley. I believe I can possibly show you on this map. The Marias River comes down here at the lower part. When t,llis controversywas first taken ,up between theinternational govern- . ments, President Ryosevelt announced that in case it was irnpossihle to come to asatisfactory decisionbetween theUnited States and Canada in reference to the divislon of the waters of the St. Mary and Milk Rivers, or that we could not obtain our just proportion of thewaters of MilkRiver, that he would bringthe water of the St. MaryKiver by an all-American route through the Cut .Bank Creek, drop the same into Marias River, bringing it by canal ST. MARY AND MILK RmIVERS. 21

system to the St. Mary Lakes and thence into the Big Santly and into Milk River. Investigption was macle in 1902 and 1904 by the Reclamation Serv- ice, and disclosed it W~Sentirely possible by construction of a dam cm t,hi.l: point, in the Marias River to obtain a Storage, reservoir of 459.000 acrc-feet.Lonesome PrairieLake, thisnatural depression 011 tllc Iloncsolrrr Prairie, ~oultlcont.ain approximately 200,000 acre- fcet. tlrakitlg A total storap capacityof 660,000 acre-feet.Under 1 hat system of irrigation there ~~onlcl1)c approximately 250.000 acres of Innd irrigatedin the alley of the Big Sandy Creek. Andthe only thinv I would desire to bring to the attention of the people of the Milk River and to your honorable,1)otly is the factt,ha.t we shonlrl II~\Tan early tlwision in regartl to the division of those waters, so that tire peopole in thissection of the country can make their arrange- tnrnts ant1 adjust thrmselvcs accordingly. It isentirely feasible for us to hnilcl a reservoirin the Marias (’allyo11 :rr:tl in thc: Lonesollrn Prairie, Lake which will irrigate this lantl trihtary to the Big Sandy Creek, and in my humble opinion, v-hile I am not an engineer. I believe we can supply a considerable portion of waterto Milk River. Engineers connected withthe 1h~la.rnattioni’ervichc. ha\^ i-old tile that apl)roxima,tely 75 per cent of the water that is ltse(l ahove in irrigation finallyfinds its way hack in the streams below. Mr. (:.IRDNER. You mean that the possible storage of water that yo11 ~~)~~i~lon wo111tltap the 11111x1. St. Mary Lake? Mr. C'owa~.I (lo not, think it would be nrc~css:wyto transfer any water from theSt. Mary Laltc into thc. JIarias. Pro111 111yexperi- mcc9 living io that counl~yl'o~ :$:: Y~:II's and okerring that stream in the spring ant1 sulnmer months. I inlaginc thew is u-nter there to irrigate our territoq- and fl1rnish consic1wal)lc surplus to (wne tlowu on the Tntli:m ("reek. Mr. (:LARK. TVolIltl thc stwarn, ,in .-;ollr opinion. sapplystorage for the reservoirs that yo11 tlescribe? Mr. OWAN. Kot beinp an rngineer, I would not bc in 5~ position to state tlefinitelp; but there is a tremendous amount of water that comes (lo~~nthe Illarias Itirer dnr,ing flootl season"hpri1, May, and June. 1 have l~dconsiderable exprience in irrigation.operat,ing an irrigatd mnch of 2,000 :~crcs,:~ud our system of irrigation is 1)rac- tically the same as this would h,011ly 011 a very sn1:Ill swlc. Prac- tically speaking, the wat,ers of the crrek from wllicll we ol~lnin0111' water supply are all approximntcly al~orcit. Tn tllcw13,\.wc I1ave 110 actual water right. In act,ual practice, by the use of our rcscrvoir, we find we have as much water as our more fol%unate OIWS who are prior proprietors. The enormous storage capacity of Marins C:tn~-on. 452,000 acre-feet, makes it a quite desirable proposition in my mind. Mr. GARDNER.Of course, that is entirely outside of the question t.hat confronts the commission, hut) since you 11n~eol)enctl it II~I should liko to get your opinion as :t business 1)ropsition. Wl1ic11 would he the more costly, to develop that storage systenl that you speak of or the full capcity of the St. M;u.?; and Milk Rircr possibilities! Mr. COWAN.Why, this would be verycostly. 'Tlle~would have to be a dam 195 feet high built :LCI'OSS the canyon of t,he Marias. Of course, with the laterengineering development--a hydraulic-filled dam, syphon overflow-the cost of that construction wonld he 7-ery much less than it wouldbe atthe time the Reclamation Service first undertook the construction of projects in this territory. Mr. POWELL.What would be the length of that dam at the top ? Mr. COWAN.If I remember correctly, approximately 324 feet. Mr. POWELL.Have you any estimated cost of the work? Mr. COWAN.An estimate was macle by the engineer of the Great NorthernRailway in 1014 at the request of thepeople living in Marias irrigation district, and he put it approximately $7,000,000 for the construction of tho clams andcanals and to irrigate the 200,000 acres of land in the Big Sandy Valley. Mr. POWELL.Where is the mouth of Matias River Z Mr. COWAN.It empties into the Missouri River down at a town called Chapell, about 10 miles northeast of Fort Benton. ST. &L4RY AND MlLR RIVERS. 23

Mr. power,^,. Is the^ character of the riparian land below the site of tlle proposed darn swh ns to warrant its llse for irrigation purposes ? Mr. CUWAN.'The bulk of the lnncl vhich ~vouldbe irrigated would be ovcrin the Big Sandy Valley. The cllaracter of theland is the very best. A gentleman came tllrough thatcountry checlring np the work of the Reclamation Service, antl he told me that we had perhaps the best land for irrigation that there was any 1)lace nnder any of the reclamation projects of the TJnitccl States. Mr. P(mx,r,. Wonld not it be that the riparian o~mershlc~ the clum n.c:ultl he utlvcrw to tllc project of tlirersion over the ?tlillc I

M~.'(~ERI-IARTZI do not think I have any lmowledge which would he of any particular benefit to you on thls question that you have beforeyou. Theonly thing that I might say somethingabout is the question that Nr. Cowan just brought up, and that is the use of Ma1-k~River to irrigate the landsclose to the Milk River. As Mr.Sands llas said, I am the engineer for theTwo-County irrigationdistrict. This is a projectto irrigate 200,000 acresby stortd water of the Mnrias, and we have. n prior right to the wnterz that he was speaking al)out, as lantk wlzich slope toward the Milk Kiver. That is about the only point that I could make, I think, that mimht have any effect on the question you have under consider.a t'ion. &r. GARDNER.As I understand it, you mean that you would inter- pose objections to their diverting that water? bfr. (;EXHBIITZ. We have prior ri hts on thatstream, and, of course, we intendto protect them. 6f course,whatever water got hack into the stream woultl be available for people living farther down the stream. Mr. SMITH.What sort of priorrights have you towaters that have not been appropriated ? Mr. GERITAI~TZ. We have our filingsand we have used due diligence in making our surveys and doing such other work as we have had. 'L'he fieltl snr\xy are completedand the plans are practicallyall macle. We expectto hare our bond issue authorizedthis fall, and as soon as wv can sell \ye expect to start construction work. Senator Cowan said that 75 per cent of the maters ~voulclnaturallv return to the stwam, Of (~n~rsr,if that is so thrg will hnve a lot of water clown the Marias; but I would not say, and as far as I know I have never seen any ligures to tell. horn much water did really return to tile strcarn from the waters tll:rt were clivertetl to the land and used for iirigation. 1 (lo not know of anything else that I can tell you, i)ecausc r am not familiar with this particnlar project. Mr. 1'0~~1m,.What is ordinarily ndoptctl hy the engineers as the percentap of the retnrn? Mr. (~RIITIARTZ. 1 wonltl say somewhere around 30 per cent. That isjust, my on-n idea. IVe have a gangingstation estrlhlishcd now. 7;l'e are mrasnring the. waste waters. or the n7:~tcr.sthat we turn hack into the stream on the Valicr 1)roject: hut the station has only been est:Iblishtvl two pears, so TW hxx 110 ltno~vleclgethat is of any benefit to 11s yet. Wc will eventually ha7;e lm)mlctlge as to how much of that pnrticnlar water retnrns to the stream. Mr. ('IAI~. I slippose you can not tlrterrnine that accurately until all the lands are thoroa@lly under irrigation. Mr. GERH.ZRTZ.That IS tm~e.and we hare t,o take it owr a period of years. Mr. Cr!mIc. T suppose when that is determined the only real loss of water is that which is lost by evaporation. Mr. GERITARTZ.Yes: and a certain portion that stays in the plants. That is, if yo11 grow alfalfa a certain amoimt of that mater is taken up hy the roots and renx1ins in the hay, and, of course. that amount of waterwill eventually he lost, in the same wag that 1vatc.r tha,t is taken 111) through the roots of othel* 1)lxnts is evaporated through the leares. ST. MARY AND MILK RsIVERS. 25

STATEMENT OF MR. BLAINE FERGUSON,REPRESENTING THE STATEAGRICULTURAL COLLEGE, BOZEMAN, MONT.

Mr. I~'EI

STATENENT OF MR. GEORGE STRATTON, UN~TEDSTATES RECLA- MATION SERVICE. Mr. STRATTON.Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the commission, if I may be permitted to do so, I will go,o’ver near t,he maps, as I think I can answer one or two questions that have been asked. In regard to the st’orage possibilities on the Milk River, coming down the stream thisin country, the Chain Lakes storageis proposed, represented by this blue spot here,of about 240,WO acre-feet capacity. That, is on the main stream in the Milk River itself. The Chain Lakes are in township35 north, 12 east, and adjacent townships. Then there is a reservoir pr0post.d on Beaver Creek at township 38 north, 32 east, of about 50,000 acre-feet capacity. No work has been done on that yet. That is not on the Milk River. It is on a 3outhern tributary, but is directly on tht tributary. ST. MARY AND MILK RIVERS. 27 28 ST. MARY BND MILK RIVNRS. ST. MARY AND MILK R8IVE1

morefamiliar with that country. It is in his district and not in mine. Mr. I%WELL.Have you any data covering the flow of the southern tributaries to the Milk River? Mr. STRATTON.Yes, sir; we have data on some of them. Mr. J”OWEI,L. Wonld you be kind enough to 1et.u~know what you have, heginning lower downstream and going up in regular consecu- tive ortier! I have bwn hunting for that information for years. Mr. QTILIITTON. That isbeing assembled for thelast few years, since one of the menhers of the commission particularly requested it, and Mr. Lamb, of the (ieological S~xrvey,is getting that. The Geo- logical Sur-vey does this stream ganging rather than the Reclamation Service. Mr. Po~I~RI~I,.That is not the first stream? Mr. STIIAWON.No. I do notthink there is anything onthese streams clown below- Mr. I’o~.I~:I,I,.Thosv lo~verones that you passwl oyer are not available for any ptwpose ? IIr. SwKmoN. KO;there is no avai1al)le data on those. Afr. l’o~vmr~.Stlxike the first that can be put to beneficial use. Jlr. S~xawow.On I3eaver Creek we hare Idg:lng.’ing readings for a nllmher of years past. . Air. I’o~v~m,.What is the averag~flow of thestream? I am speaking now of the flow during the irrlgation season. 1Mr. SwxrTolv. It is practicallynothing. I was upthat stream within a wee,k, and it was dry. That, is a fairly typical condition. lfr. MAf:w\Trt. 13ut Beaver creek comes in sonth of Nelson Reser- wir. Mr. STIUTTON.Pes; it is just about clue south of Nelson Reservoir, 1)llt there is a hill hetmern it and Nelson Reservoir. Mr. Powmr,. Where is the confluence itself vith the Milk River? Mr. STnawoh-. It is near Hinsdale and about 6 miles above Van- (.lalia Dam. Mr. I’owrm,. In range 36? IMr. STBATTON. Yes, sir; in range 36. Mr. POWELL. Now take the next to the left. Mr. STRATTON.Here is PeoplesCreek. There is a gaugingsta- tion maintained on that. Mr. Pow~r,r,. Whatis the average flow on that during the irrigation season 8 Mr. STI~ATTON.That is usually dry in the irrigation season at this point. Mr. I’~wEI,L.Wow, the next onr. Mr. STRATTON.The next one is White Bear Creek, and I think there is no gauging station on that creek. Mr. POWELL.Is the flow negligible there in the irrigation season? 1Mr. STRATTON.Yes, sir; it is negligible in the irrigation season. Mr. POWELL.Now, the next one. Mr. STRATTOX.The next one is Snake Creek, on which there is a gauging station maintained during the irrigation season. Mr. POWELL.What is the flow8 Mr. STRATTON.The flow is practically nil. Mr. PowEm. You say “ practically nil.” Give use somefigures n-itllin which you mean the observation of your renlarks to apply. SO ST. MARY AND MILK RIVERS. Mr. STRATTON.Nearly always the reports that I see comingin state that there is no flow, or that thereis a flow of about one-half a second-foot. Occasionally there is a rain down there and it runs up a tioocl. Mr. I’o.w~cr,r,. Yes ; a cloudburst or something of that kind. Now? take the next to the left. Mr. STRATTON.You ar0 getting. yp now where I amnot so fauliliar with them. That one [indicating] I do not think there is it station on. This one is Clear Creek. There is a station on that one. Mr. power,^.. Thcrc! are some good streams that flow from the Rear Paw Mountain Range. What are those? Mr. STRATTON.This is one that comes from the Bear Pam rid- cating]. At the nlonth, which is where T am speaking of- Mr. MAGI~ATEI.Wlmt range? Mr. STRATTON.That empties in range 18. That flows but, little in the irrigation se:tson, but there :we quite a number of ditches taking out, aboGe here. Mr. I’owe~,~,.Could you giw 11s some estimate of the subtraction? Mr. STRATTON.No, sir; I conld not. Some of t>llesemen mho are familiar with the country conld perhaps do that,. Mr. POWEI,L.Are the men present? Mr. STRATTON.Mr. Sands, do youknom that country? Mr. SANDS. Yes,sir; fairly well. Mr. Pow~ra,.Can you give 11s that information, Mr. Sands? Mr. SMITH.First I would like to ask Mr. Stratton a question, if I may be permitted.Mr. Stratton, all this flow of which you are spraking goes from the south into the Milk River? Mr. STRATTON.This flow that-I am speaking of nom is from the sonth ; yes, sir. That is my understanding, that you desired to consider the southern portion, Mr. Powell? Mr. POWELL.Certainly. Now, what is the next one? Mr. STRATTON.This is Box Elder. I think there is a station on tlltlt,. Mr. I’OWELI,.What is the flow of that stream? Mr. STRATTON.It is in about the same class as Clear Creek. There are diversions upstream on it, but, so far as I know, at the mouth it contributes but little during the irrigationseason. Mr. CLARK.What is the purpose of your gauging a stream where all the water is gauged and used above the station? Mr. STRATTON.We have the matt,erof the division of water in two divisions,of the project here as to the natural flow of the river ant1 the St.Mary flow of theriver. This country around Chinook is entitled at the present time to the natnral flow of the Milk River. They have that water right from their old rights, but for supplement,al flow from the St. Mary they pay an aclwfoot charge. It is necessary for 11s to cletermine~what t,he flow of the Milk River sepn- rated from the St. Mary River is. in order to determine the charge against, thrse districts 1113 hcl~?.For that, purpose it is necessary for 11s to ltnow what thcsr strcwms contribute or if thy contribntc any- tltinp. Mr. CL.\Rl<. I 1mclcrstxnd 11OW. MI.. STTLV~TON.Tllnt, is WILT we keep stntions on those streams if t,llore is no flow tl1e1.e. ST.AND MARY RIVERS.MILK .31

MI:. POWELL.Have you exhtwstd the southern tributaries? Mr. STRATTON.There is the Big Sandy coming in up here [indicating]. MK POWELL.What, is the average flow of that stream cluring the irrigation season 8 Mr. STRATTON.There is some flow there, I think. That is, it is distinguished from some of these others that, you might say are absolutely dry, but ti or 10 second-feet \voultl be large. for an nvcragc estimate on that. Mr. I'OWICLL.Tllat is the last one ? Mr. STI~TTON.Yes. This is :L flat country up here [indicating], and yon ruay say there is no run-off in the sununer time. Mr. GARDNI~.TVllere is this flat country of which you speak? Mr. STILVYI'ON.It is in the vicinity of the Chain Lakes Resenvoii'. Mr. I'oa.I:r,r,. There are no flows into tllc? 1xl;es c.scept the one nbovc--the Milk River. Mr. STRATTON.None except, the Milk River. Mr. POWI~LI,.Taking tlw slmmx~tionof tlw flow of tallwesolnt,hern tributaries during tlw irrigation s(wm11. nllat woulcl they t,otal-- more than 50 second-feet ? Rfr. SrRATToN. In my opinion. they would not. Xlr. CLAHIC.What would they total during the pear? Mr. STRATTON.I could not give you a figure which w0111d be worth anything on that without going through the recordsand taking that information off. Rutthe flow while it is largefor a fewdays lasts but a short time in the spring. , Mr. POWELL.Are you acquainted with what might be called the hydrometric conditions of this country! Mr. STRATTON.To some extent. Mr. POWELL.What is the average rainfall of thatportion of Montana which is the watershed of the Milk River south from the stream ? Mr. STRATTON.There are, so far as I know,no rainfall stations as you get back out of the valley. The stations along through the valley here have an average of about 13 inches. Mr. POWELL.How about the northern portion, between there ancl the boundary line! hfr. SmAmoN. There are no stations maintained except through the valley. Mr. POWELL.Have you any idea what it is? Mr. STRATIQN.I do not think it raries greatly. Mr. POWEI,L.Is there any difference in degree in the aridity between the tract to the north of the Milk River ancl the tract to the south of the Milk River? Mr. STRATTON.I do not think there is. Of course, that is in general. In one year you geta more humid condition in one spot than in another. butin general I think it :Irerages up about the same: as far as the northand south go. Mr. POTVELL.Yon are not able to sl)eak comparatirely of the tracts to the, west of your big reservoir? Mr. STRAITON.No: I am more concerned with this. My personal knowledge is through the rallep. not as you get back away from the bench. 250~--23--3 32 ST. MARY AiiD MILK RIVERS. Mr. POWELL.Now, just another question and then I am through. I wantsomething more than mere opinion. In yourjudgment, based on facts which you have, you say that the larger flow during theirrigation period is from the north via the affluence of the Jlilk, or from the south via theaffluence of the Milk River? Mr. STRAITON.It is fromthe north, I think.These streams, Battle Creek and Lodge Creek, do contribute some water throughout the season. Mr. 1'0~~~1,~.There seems to \)e :I little tliscrel)nncy? if my recollection serves me correctlv, with respect to these streams t,hat have their sources in t,he Bear i'aw Mountains. Tt has been represented to 1:s that thesestreams hare almostnot a glacial so~cebut. a snow sotwc'e in these mountains. and the flow Breps np longer in the summer time ant1 they have a better flow than any otller trihntaries. 1s that correct? Mr. STILWTOS.Mr. Ssilmls, can yo11 answr that qnestion? Mr. SANDS.That was the suggystion that I made. MY. Powell, that they dit1 do so : but t,he water 1s all tlirertetl beforr it- reaches the Milk lii\w: it never reaches the 3Iilk River (luring the irrigation SPasoIl. Mr. ~'~IVKLI,. Tt woultl not nlake any tlifkrence to 11s in making up o~trjutlgment, assuming that these streams hat1 to be brought into account in the general marshaling of the water, whether they were owned by prirnte people or by the(hvernment. The questionis whatquantity of wateris nsetl there by thelhericans, whether intliriduals, companies, or the (iovernment. as against the quantity used in Canada by either individuals, companies,or the Government. Mr. 'SANIH.That woultl be very tlificult for us to dcltermine. for the reason that there arc nearly 3$00 diversions from the Milk River .wholly within the IJnited States, and me have made only a very few gauging stations. It is one of the reasons we brought you here-to show you that, it ~vonltlbe almostimpossible to nxasuw all those diversions and take them into account in making the equal division . that the Canadianssuggest. Mr. POWE~LL.Mr.Sands, \vor~ltl it be fair t.o assume thatthe flow-off would be the, s:me per milt. in the case. of your land to the north of the Milk River as in the cas:c~of yolw Innd to the south of the Milk Rive,r ? Mr. SANDS.13uts I think that thr lxinfall woultl be hcnvier in the Ihr Paw and in the Little Rocky Mountains than on the prairie here. Mr. POWELL.Would it be appreciably heavier? Mr. SANDS'.Yes; quite appreciably. I think the reports from the Rear Paw give a much heavier rainfall there than right here in the valley. That would be true also of the Sweet Grass Hills and of the lnountain ranges that yon have in Canada that are within this tlistrict. Mr. DIGNAN.Is it a fact, Mr. Stratton, that we have years here when theaverage precipitation exceeds fully 7 inches(luring the entire year Z Mr. STRATTON.Yes, sir. Theprecipitat,ion at Malta in 1909, I think, was slightly over 7 inches. At Mafttt'in 1917 it was about, 8.7 inches. ST. MARY AND MILK RIVERS. 33 Mr. DIGXAX.That was for 12 months? Mr. STBATTON.That was for 12 months. Mr. CLARK.Does that include snow and rainfall? Mr. STRATTOK.Yes, sir. It is given in this table. here by months so it. can be taken off during the irrigationseason. Mr. GARDNER.Does yourrecord show thatthat is an unusual condition ? Mr. STRATTOS. Yes, sir; that is less thm the normal. Perhaps I should not say unusual, butit is less than the average. Mr. GARDNER.I understood yon to sag that the average was about 13 inches. Mr. STRATTON.AbotIt 13 inches. Mr. GAI~DNEX. That wou1c1,of conrse, nlean that in a good many years it is in excess of that. Mr. STRATTON. It shows on this tablefor March 12.93 for an average of 16 ye.ars, varying from a maximnm of 20.8 to a minimum of 6.32. Mr. CIAI~.What precipitation (lo you consider up here is sufli- cient for a crop? I amspeaking now withreference to the possi- Idities of dry farming. Mr. Swurrox. I m7ould rather sonle farmer answer that question. Mr. MAGRATII. Mr. Stratton, what is the total area in this Milk River Valley that is capaljle of irrigation from the Milk Xiver itself? I am not speaking of lands on the' tributaries or the waters of thetributaries. What isthe total area? It has been given to lis before. The shtements previously presrnted varied a great deal Yon said a moment ago you were familiar with the valley here, antl 1 want to get at the facts. Mr. STRATTON.The total area that we plan to event,ually irrigate under the project is about 190,000 acres. Mr. MAGRATH. Will that cover all the lami in this valley .that can lje irrigated fro'm that stream? Is that a fair and reasonable state- ~nent? Thatis what we are after. Mr. STRATTON.Yes; if I understand your question, I think tllat is right; that that is all thatcan he irrigated in the valley. Mr. MAGRATH.By watersfrom Milk River? Mr. STIZATTOS.Yes. It woultl be possible toextend antl take in lands which are not taken in nnder that system. For instance, therc are, perhaps, 20,000 acres of land lying to the north of the Milk Iiirer through this country north of Saco and Hinsdale. Mr. MAGIIATII.North of what? Mr. STRATTON. North of Sac0 and Hinsdale, on the north side of the river. Mr. MAGRATH.Can that be irrigated by thetributaries coming from the north? Mr. STuwoN. No, sir; that is not included in onr.project or any contemplated project, public or private, here. Mr. MAGRATII. Is it in the valley? Mr. STRATTON.It is in the valley and it would be physically possible to divert water from the Milk River over that land. It was formerly included in the project, but it is no longer contemplated that we willbuild it. Mr. CLARK.What was the cause of rejection, the expense? 34 ST. MARY AND MILK RIVERS. Mr. STRNYON.That was one reason. The question of water supply entered into it also, and the matter of the desire of the land- owners. It islargely privately owned land, and the owners were not anxious to encumber their lands to pay for the cost of it. All those things contribnted to eliminating it from the project. Mr. DRAKE. Mr. Stratton, I realize that the figures in respect to irrigable areil must change from time to time as your plans dev&p. You hare accountetl for an area of 20.000 acres. My recollection is that somefew yearsago the area for the project mas givenas 219.000, whereas nom it is given as 189.OO0, and you have accounted for abolnt 20,000 acreslying in the S:wo district. Where was the other elirninated? 1111.. STRATTON.There llns been consiclernble eliminated by worlri11g tlown the individnal areas ant1 gett,ing down to the nctunl area in ~11~11f:uvl unit. That, :tccormts for considerdde reduct,ion. There is also, I think, some rctluction in some lands in connection with the lwjght of thecanal. As you work 011 any irrigation project the longer yon stltdg it the less m~rnbc~of :teres you get in it. 3fr. DEAKE.I quiteappreciate that, as we are having the same tlifticlllti6s you arc. I just wantcd the information. Mr. Pow~r,~,.How about tlu: frcsllet flow in thespring of the yc?a,r? What. is the elevntion of the strectm here, we willsay, at Chinoolt ? Mr. STR.ITTON.That is,whether it stays within the r.iver b:lnks or gets out of them? 311..POWET,~,. No; bnt, what is the resnltant increase in elevation of the surface of the river here? Jfr. STR.\TTON.I wo~dcl sag liltely it rises 20 feet, in elerat,ion here clwing the spring floods at Chinool~ Would you agree with t'hat st.atenlent, Mr. Sands? Mr. SANDS.Yes, sir ; sometimes more than that from the bott'om of the river. ~r.EVW,T". It would take an immense reservoir to contain all that, flow. Mr. SANDS.A 20-foot clam would not be so high, but the trouble n-ould be in taking care of all that water when It comes down and spreads out over a large territory. Mr. O OW ELL. Now, today, as I understandyou and the other witnesses, the United States receives all the waters that flow within this large a1-e~~shown on the map by this heavy purple line. That is correct, is it not? Mr. STRATTON. By that you mean that the Reclamation Service receives and distributes those waters? MY. POWELL. No ; I am not saying that they make use of them, 1)ut I :~msaying that the water is there for the Americans, whether it can be made use of or not. Mr. GARDNER.Is there any diversion above the boundary on the Frenchman River? 311.. STRATTON.Yes; there are diversions on the Frenchman and 011 the tributaries, Battle Creek and Lodge Creek. ~r.POWELL. Yes ; I should have included those, which I did not do. JI~.STRATTON. Those are small diversions, so far as I know tllem, tllere is a considerable, number of them. ST. MARY AND MILK RIVERS. 3 5.5

STATEMENT OF MR. F. H. NEWELL,CONSULTING ENGINEER OF. THE UNITED STATES RECLAMATION SERVICE. Mr. NEWELL.Mr. Chairman, I have had the pleasure of appearing before the commission, and I think I opened the casel by a preliminary statement at St. Paul when you first took the matter up. My recollection is that mine was the first general statement of the contlitions. Sincethat time-seven years ago-there have been a gootl lnany changes and clevelopnlents, and, as stated by Mr. Strat- ton. Illany of the things that we thought we coulcl clo and many of . thoareas that we thought wecoulcl irrigatehave been gradually elinlinnted.There have been no otheressential changes since that time, excepting in those details, and I would be very glad to answer any q1Lestions so far as I can. It is a subject that I have been study- ing :It' intervals with considerable continuity of interest since 1888 or 18'30, and I have follomed the developments as far as they could be macle plain. The only point that I might care to emphasize at this time that mightinterest 3-0~1is the possibility, as broughtout by Senator Cowan, of revcrting again to the all-American canal line.I have just been over the ground to look again at the feasibility of it from an engineering standpoint. It is not as difficult as we thought at first because we havealready built other similar lines. But it might interest yon, as the question has been brought up, to lrnow that it is considered feasible to extend the St. Mary River Canal, which now leaves the St. Mary River on the west side, crosses it, comes into the low hills at t,he lle~acl of Milk River, and comes over and discharges into the NorthFork of Milk River, and then the waterflows through ('annda. Now, it is physically possible before that water discharges into the North Fork to intercept it and take it around on the North Fork through a rather deep cut int,o the Middle or South Fork and then cross that Middle or South Fork and come across the divide into the Cut Bank and then out of the Cut Rank into the irrigation district in the vicinity of the town of Cut Rank and east as far as nlight, 1)c desirable. Thatis simply one of thethings that might be (lone, at large expense, if it mere considered necessary or desirable to utilize more of St. Mary Rirer water in the United States. tmginccring standpoint. It is not as difficultj as we thought ;It first nntl on reexamination it seems to be quite feasible, although it \~*onld not be an economical use of the water in St. Mary River; it could be 36 ST.AND MARY MILK RIVERS. used cheaperthrough the present Milk River. This woalcl be a revival of the old all-American canal. The situation I think you have very clearly in mind, and I hardly think it, is necessary to thresh old straw unless there are some questions that may be brought up that are of interest to yon gentlemen. Mr. CLARK.Mr. Newell, I think you madean investigation at, one time and reported the estimated cost of construction for reservoirs for the St. Mar Hiver water at the foot of the lalres. Mr. NEWELL.May ask Mr. Stratton or Mr. Snell for that infor- nlntion?Those estimates swhen originally maclewere verysmall, andall estimates for all construction work have very greatly in- creased since the original rather preliminary estimates were made; butthere has been since a recheckingwhich I would Ilartlly dare give from memory without corroboration. . Mr.CLARK. I amasking that question on tlle assumptionthat storage will be the ultimate solution of this whole question. Mr. NEWELL. I may say that whatever the cost may be 'it is well within the value of the water; that is to say, no nlatter how lar e the estimate of the cost might be, it would still be well within t Ble economical value of the water when stored. Mr. CLARK.That is, if the individual were able to pay for it P Mr. NEWELL.Yes. Mr. CLARK. Of course, there is a time when the charge upon land for water becomes so large thRt it is not an economical value. Mr. NEWELL.In thatconnection I would like to insert in the record the fact that Tyhen this ~vork wasto be started and the reclamation act was debatedin Congress we estimatedthat about $20 an acre was as much as the land would sttmd. Since that time our ideas have very greatlyincreased. Again and again people haw come to me, even within a few days, and said:" If we can get a tlependable supply of water we can easily pay $100 an acre under easy terms to the Gor- rrnment without interest." As a lrlattcr of fact, on the Valier project, private p~.ojec.twest of here, the charge for water is$60 an acre, and that is not to be considered excessive, as they have already sold upward of 80.000 acres at Irices approaching that -amount. hr. &'OWELL. Do youmean that those figures would be supple' mented by an annual char e? Mr. Nr:wer,L. An amua7 charge for maintenance is an additional charge. Mr. Pon.~.r..r,. What is the average annnal charge ? Mr. NI~~vI~,.It will range from a dollar an acre-foot up to $2, or possibly nm:e on storage projects. Mr. GAI:~)NI.H..Just what do you mean by the $60 per acre? Does that mean the purchaw pricc of the land? Mr. NIWELL. That is the purchase price of the water rights. The land itself under the CareyAct sold at $1.50 per acre. The mater rights :we $60 per acre. Mr. Ga~u~en.Ts that an exclusive charge, or is that an annual charge ? Mr. ~TEWZIJ,.That is the total charge, paid in 14 annual install- ments, with interest. Mr. GARDNER. Thenit is in perpetuity following that 8 ST. MARY ANI) MILK RIVERS. 37 Mr. NEWELL.Then for all time the maintenance and operation must be paid b the owner of the land.

~ Mr. Smm. %on mean by the $6Q an acre, Mr. Newell, that that is a permanent water right, for that price1 w Mr. NEWELL.Yes, sir. Mr. SMITH.And that permanent water right runs with the land, and the owner contributes his part of the expense of keeping up the project Z Mr. NEWELL.Exactly. Mr. POWELL.Maintenance, renewals, and repairs P Mr. NEWELL.Yes, sir; maintenance, renewals, and repairs arethe11 an annual charge on topof t.he first cost of the water. Mr. CLARK.Mr. Newell, perhaps you can give me the information I have been soliciting as to the normal flow of the St. Mary to the boundary during the irrigation season. Mr. NEWELL.The normal flow, as I recall it-and I would ask M:. Drake or Mr. Snell to correct me if I am wrong-is during the irrlgation season something over a thousand cubic feet per second, rising at times to two or three thousand,or even more, but dropping toward the end of the irrigation season to 500 or less. Mr. CLARIC.Then an absolute appropriation of 500 cubic feet per second at times during the irrigation season would absolutely absorb the .entire flow of the St. Mary? * Mr. NEWELL.Yes, sir. Mr. MAGRATH. Doesit not get down, Mr. Newell, to a 1itkltl.e over 100 second-feet in certain are.as8 Mr. NEWELL.I doubt if it gets much below 300, but Mr. Drake, I know, has that right inhis memory. Mr. CLARK.I would like to have that in the record, if Mr. Drake has it. Sir WILLIAM HEAILST. We have all the accurate tables. Mr. DRAKE.You have the tables before you. I canonly cor- ~.oborate n-hat Mr.Newell says, that it sometimes, in the latter part of the season, goes down as low as 2DO or 300 second-feet. That does not occur as a rule, and in the years in which it doesoccur it does not happen until probaldy late in August. Mr. MAGRATH.I mas under the impression thatit has been down to n1)out 125. It is a question of memory, but we have the tables. Mr. D~AICE.YOU have them in that compilation that wascompiled by engineers on 110th sides of tlie line up to and including 1917. Mr. SnurH. Mr. Newell, have. you a record, or do you know what is the flow of the Milk River across the international boundary line during whatyou know as the irrigation season? Mr. NEWELL.We have a very accurate record, which is published in the volume of river flow, and my recollection is that during the irrigation season the flow of Milk River at what we call the eastern crossingdrops to between 100 and 150 second-feet, and sometimes . even less. It becomes almostdry at that point. I willinsert in the record the actual figures if you will permit me. Mr. Smrrrx. I didnot know it was in the records. 1 wouldnot have asked you had I known it. * Sir WILLIAMHEARST. Mr. Newall, during thesame period that you were giving for the eastern c,rossing what is the flow of the eastern tributaries? 38 ST. MARY AND MILK RIVERS. Mr. NEWELL.The eastern tributaries come in east of the eastern crossing,and, as stated by Mr. Stratton,the flow isvery nearly nothing. That is to say, it would be 1 or 2 second-feet, because all of the water th& is available at that time is diverted by the smalI ditches, of which there are about 3,000, taking out of those tribn- taries. Sir WILLIAMHEARST. I am speaking of the flow at the international bonndary. You gave us, as I understand, the figures for the Milk River at the eastern c.rossing. Now, I have asked you for the figures during the same time at the international boundary of the eastern tributaries. How do they compare? Mr. NEWELL.The eastern tributaries crossing the international boundary at about that time are flowing perhaps 10 or 20 cubic feet per second, most of the flow being taken by the small diversions in Canada, :Ind relativelylittle water coming across intothe United States during the irrigationseason. Mr. MAGRATI-I.Will Mr. Drake confirm that, Mr. Newell? Mr. NEWELL.I would be very lad if he would. Mr. DRAKE.I am afraid I COLI fcl not confirm that. Mr. NEWELL.I will amend it. Mr. I~AKE.A comparatively small amount of the flowof those rlorthern tributaries is tlivertecl for me in Canada. At the time this vas was first hrartl at St. Paul theCanadian engineers estimated the total run-off of those five nortlwn trihtaries as190,000 acre-feet per annum. That was the best information we had at that time. I ~v-cllrenwmlm that one of the TTnited States engineers, Mr. Connor, took exception to that figure and said that hc thought 140,000 acre- feet \vo~~ltlI)e nearerthe mark. The records weresubsequently checked up by engineers from both sides of the line and published inthat remarkably expensive but very useful volume referred to hg the chairman. and it was found that to the end of 1917-1 am speaking now roughlyfrom memory, but, I think I amnearly correct-- Mr. SMrm. And of the irriga,tion season or annual flow ? &h. DRAKE.The annual flow. It mas237,000 acre-feet. That ctllcnlat,ion \-vas rechecked justa fewdays ago, because theyears *I since 1917haTe been abnormallydry, and the average now has been reclnced to approximately 207,000 acre-feet. I ~vonld not attempt to say what portion of that occurs during theirrigation season,except to say’ this, thatduring the winter there is very little run-off from any of those streams. The hulk of the run-offoccurs between. F,ay, the15th of Marchand probably thc 1st of May. Sir WILLIAM HEARST.How does the total run-off of these trihu- taries at the boundary compare with the run-off in the main Milk River at the eastern crossing? Mr. NEWI~,.I am afraid I could not give you Chat information offhand. I do know thatthe main Milk River at the eastern crossingis sometimes practically dry. That isalso the condition at the same time of the year, so far asthese northern tributaries are concerned; hut it is a fact that the main Milk River at the international crossing is sometimes a raging stream, and that is also true of these northern tributaries. Many a man has found that true to his sorrow when he attempted to ford them. ST. MARY AND MILK RIVERS. 39 Mr. HANIJS. Mr.Chairman, when we first conceived the idea bf askingthe commission to come outhere, in a letter to the commission I asked that before the hearing we have a concise statement of theclaims matle byeach of theparties. I did so with a view of knowingexactly what the argument was to be about. But up to this time I confess that I do not know exactly what the Canadians claim. It is wry pussiblc that. we think they claim Inore than they actually do. We,IlnfortunateIy, had to take the affirmative or be head first in St. Paul, becansc the hearings were in this country, 1 presume,and, unfortunately, I think m-e areappearing first in this hearing, and up to t,his time we have not hac1 any conclse statement of the exact di#erences between the United States and'Clanncla. We have here with us Mr. Drake, of the Reclamation Service of . Canada, who, I hare no doubt, coulcl giveus a statement of what they do actnally claim. It is possible,as I say, that we havemis- jndgetl them and do not, understand what they do claim, and if it ~vonltlhc appropriate I wonltl ask to have n statement fro111 Mr. Drake. We would be very glad to hear it, and, perhaps, after hearing it we wonld have a 111oy.e friendly feeling tovard the Canadians in that respect. Mr. Gsmmm. Do you offer yonrself a sacrifice? Mr. DRAKE. I think that is practically what it woul(1 amount to, antl I am reluctant. to (10 it. for the reason that there should not be any doubt in the world ns to what has been rlnimcd on behalf of Canada, if one will simply take the trouble torend the written record and thp statement made by connsel representing the C:u:aclian Gov- ernment. The statement has been matle fully, and it has also been made very concisely. I do not think it moult1 be appropriate for me, not being counsel representing the Canadian (+overnment, to attempt to restate that, because it is on record, nor do I think it wodd be appropriate for me to attempt t,o support it by argument when PO . many very exhaustive arguments have been made by Colonel Ahc- Innes, by Mr. Tilley, and by others, who very directly antl nuthorita- tivelyrepresented the (hnadian Government. It wouldhardly be proper for a layman to attempt to interfere in a matter of that sort which has so fully been covered by lawyers. Aside from that I would like very much to discuss the problem with Mr. Sands, but hardly in this way. Governor DIXON.I would like to ask Mr. Newell, re resenting the United States, and Mr. Drake, who, I understand, is &nndian engineer, if they could agree on a statement. to thiscommission as tohow mnch extra water could be impounded, antl at what probable cost, on the St. Mary watershed, antl how mnch c.oulcl be impounded, and at what probalole cost, on the upper reaches of the Milk River. To my mind that is a very important factor in the settlement of this dispute. 'I have an abiding faith that if we would turn our attention on both sides of the line to conserving the waters that now run in waste to the1 sea in both of these rivers we might solve this question to the satisfaction of hoth Canatlims and people of Montana. Mr. PowEm. That is complete solution by storage? Governor DIXON.Yes; and that may be thesolution instead of thesetechnical legal arguments by the at.torneys. I wouldIike to ask Mr. Drake. 40 ST. MARY .4ND MILK RIVERS. Mr. DRAKE:.Governor, if your remarks are, addressed to me, I can only say that I agree with you absolutely that the control of flood waters now going to waste is the crux of the whole situation. It is not SO easy-in tact, it is impossible now-to answer either of your . questionsdefinitely. I think it is impossible foranyone at present to say just to what extent and at what'cost it is possible to conserve either flood waters of the St. Mary or the flood waters of the. Milk ant1 its tributaries, because, as yoli thoroughly understand, the conservation of maters on tributary streams is of ,just as much consequence ;IS the conservation of waterin main streams themselves. Taking all these watersheds, comprising these two streams ant1 their tributaries, storage is the solution of the prohlem. I think if the commission has the power to order a. very complete investigation and report on tllnt, and if the two Gon?rnlllents codd subsequently agree to store those waters, they~vould have gone a long way townrd solving :I qwstion thxt up to the pyesent has not been sdisfactorily solved. Mr. GBHI)NEH:hs a nlatter of opinion on yorw part, do you think thatis :L prtwtica1)le bnsincss propositionto inlpound a sufficient amount of wxter on these two materslleds'to take care, of the irrigation of all irrigable lands within the two watersheds? Mr. DRAEE.No, sir; I don't think so. I think there would still be some lands for which there wouldbe no water available. Mr. GARDNER.So that ifall the water was impoundedthat it would be possible to impound there would stillbe some lands unpro- vided for? Mr. DRAKE.I am satisfied,no matter what the solution of this question may ultimately be, that there will be some lands in Canada the owners of which will want water for and can not get it, and the very same condition mill exist in Montana. Governor DIXON.Approximately, how manyacre-feet of water ' could be conserved in St. Marys clrainnge basin on our side of the line for which there is practical storage possibilities" + Mr. DRAKE.I don't, know that exactly. Theengineers of the UnitedStates Reclamation Service have made many studies of storage possibilities there and have made niany estimates as to $he qu:tntity of water that might be stored, but there has been some un- certainty in their minds as to the stability of the foundation upon which a darn nus st rest. I heardMr. Davis, the chiefengineer- Director at present of theReclamation Service-say--nt least I understood him to say; I would not like to make the statement posi- t,ively-that he belivcd it would be possible to st,ore a great deal of wrkter in St. l\lary Lakes; t,llat even if the foundation were somewhat porous. and some waterdid seep through it the mater that seepedtllrough would still beusablc, because it would flow down the channel. of t,he St,. Mary River and could be used in Canad:t; ancl he did not, {;Link the seepage ~ouldbe sufficient to serionsly mtlanger the construction itself. I think that statenlmt is correct. Mr. NEWELL.Yes. Governor I)rso~..I wonlcl like to ask Mr. Nowell regarding this sanle matter: From your knowledge of 25 years, what is the possibility of practical storage of water around St. Marys, within reason- :hie cost, to help fortify the situation on both sitlcs of the line? ST. MART AND RLILI< RIVKRS. 41 & Mr. NETVEIJ,.There is no question in my nlintl from the engineering status, but what it will be practicable to store jn St. Mary Tmlr~s or tributaries-two St. Marys-practically :dl of the av>~iIahleflow. There may be occasiodly flood flows of an extraordinary natwc that it would not pay to store. hut. if T may refer to a little ;tnc.ie,nt history,when this matter w-as under(Iistussion Itctween tlw two (iovernments, Dr. W. 'F. Ring, astronomer of Canatla, antl myself wereasked tomake a broadengineering study. snc.11 :IS T k)elie\c that Mr. Drske and myselfcould make,or ot,her ,\merican engineers,with advantage to both countries. And the funt1:tmental proposition 011 which TR acted was this: That it nwdtl be a practical and economic crime, yon might sap. not to store e\-cr.v available drop of water that could be stored economically. or to tltyrive one country of water which it coultl Iw, simply bet*a1tse of the cs- istence of this arbitrary line of division. On that we ;lttt.mptetl to formulate a policy. you might say. that was nltimately embodied in thetreaty with Great Britain. But I still believe that wherevc3r the water occurs and can be held economic:llly, it sho1lltl I)e held ant1 utilized in whichever country it can be 11set1 to the best ativantage. I believe we might accept that as a broad print-iple. and if we did I believe thatmen acquainted with the sitnntion could sit clown-engineers-and workout, perhaps withont any regart1 to what our icleas.migllt be of the treaty, towork out an itlrallp 1)erfec.t scheme, and then see to what extent it can be n~atleto conform to the conceptions which .have. grown up reparcling the actllal intent of the treaty. Do I answeryour questions! Governor DIXON.Yes. Nom, of course. this u1tim:ltrly leads to participation in costs by both Canada antl the TTnitetl States in the saving of this extra water. You hnve at the lower St. Mary a tentative plan, have yon not? Mr. NEWRLI,. Yes. Governor Drso~.That was ~vorlw1ollt ye:~rsago. TTo\v many acre-feet could you store there? Mr. NE\VF,T,L.My recollection is something like 200,000 acre-feet. As much, at anyrate, as thelake at normal tinles of water 011 Swift Current wonlcl hold. Governor DIXON.How much approximately has the action of tlw Onited States in building the reservoir t.hat you h;1ve :it this time on the St. Mary conserved? Mr. NE:WEI,T,.Well. virtually there are about 70.000 acre-fed,in round numbers. Governor DIXOX.,hl by thebtdtling of Sherhlrne Ihm yo11 have already adcle,tl (iO.000 acre-feet to the mater stlpply? Mr. NEWELL.Yes. (;overnor DISON.You can adcl 300,000 acre-feet? Mr. N~\vmr..Approsinxltely : in round terms. (Sovtnor- T)rsos. Wonltl thatesh:rwt the storage possibilities there 2 Mr. NEW'ELI,.So far as we know. it moultl. izh. CIAI~.Th:lt between St. ~Marysand internationtd boundary? Mr. Nmvmr,. Pes. As I understand it-and Mr. Drake mill verify it-that possibly there is some storage north of the boundary which may still further conserve the waters of St. Mary River for use in ('ana&;and 1.think we discussecl in a generalway a practical 42 ST. MARY AND MILK RIVERS. scheme thatmight be rather infolved, that mould store water in Canatla and even then contribute back to Milk River because of the very peculiar topography, but that is very involved; what you might call an interchange of courtesy. Mr. I~RAKE.That is quite true, though. Mr. POWELL.What are the storage capacitieson the northern side of the boundary line with respect to theSt. Mary? Mr. I)RAKE.I do not think I could give you the precise figures. Koughly, the situation moulcl be that just about at the point where the St. Mary River crosses the international boundary, or within a mile or two of that point, a dam could be constructed that would hack the water up some little distance into the TJnited States, but moulcl raise the height sufficiently to permit, of a diversion canal being taken out to the east. Water could be carried thence to what are known as St. Mary Lakes and to the reservoir which we call Tailor- ville, andfrom there to a further reservoir called Lumpy Butte. I would say, roughly, the combined capacity of those three might be75,000 acre-feet. Then there are other possibilities I wouldnot care to discws now, because they involve a great deal of complicated engineering, but water coulcl be stored in what we call Milk River Reservoirs,which lie, roughly, say, intownship 6 of rang 22- somewhere in that neighborhood-and it is possible to take water out of those last-mentioned reservoirs and turn it eastward into Ver- digris Coulee, which runs from northwest to southeast, crossing just a little north of Milk River Station and then running down t,o Milk River. Ry means of a clam constructed in Verdigris Coulee, water. diverted from either ;Milk Rirer or St. Mary Rivercould be stored- part of it could be used in Canada and part of it coulcl be rediverted' through the channel of the Milk River for use down in Montana. Mr. Pow~r~r,.What is the extent of the storage there? Mr. DRAIW.A\pproximately 100,000 acre-feet.More than thatp- 140,000 acre-feet. Mr. POWIPJ.L.That, gives 470,000 additional. Mr. DRAKP:.There are great possibilit,ies. but these possibilities involve huge expenditures, and they vonld all ha~eto be stndied very carefully. (;avernor DIXON.Are they more expensive than the original St: Mary storage on the American side? Mr. DRAK~.Relatively, I think they \-vonlcl cost more for the quantity of water shored. It is usunlly much cheaper to store water by :I dam across the stream itself than is it to divert water fromt,he stream for storage elsewhere, because in the latter case yon hare to rely on flood mater and have t.0 construct an enormons canal and utilize a considerable volume of water that flows only for a short time. ($overnor DIXO'N. What would be thecost,. approximately, of 25,000 acre-feetstorage at St. Marythat Mr. Netvell's staff made some report on some years ago! Mr. DRAKE.I don't know, sir. nncl even if I hat1 the' fipres in my mind, which I have not, I would much prefer that the United States engineers would give them. Governor DIXON.I wonlcl like to ask Mr. Sewel1 that.What would it cost to create 25,000 acre-feet more water up t,here? Mr. NEWELL.My impression is-and I would like to correct it in the,record-that it cost between $5 and $10 an acre-foot for storage. ST. MARY AND MILK HIVERS. 'i 3 That is on a broad impression. N~Y,as yon know, all estimates are nsually exceeded,because wediscoT*er unknown conditions-undis- coverable conditions until the ground is opened. We hare estimated the storage there griginally, I think, at about$2 an acre, but because of the very uncertain foundations our estimates hare gradually run np; but if I will be permitted 1 cnn pnt in the exact figures in the testimony when it is written out. Governor DIXON.I-Iow high a darn? Mr. NemEm. We ha\-e figured on 40 feet and sonletinicy higher. Tile (ptestion of the height of dam is governed by the height of 1y.nter that. will stantl against the foundations, and which hecause of its pres- STIT'Cwill force its -my through the foundations. There \Till always be u certain amount of water going through these gravel fonndations; ant1 if the qmntityis small and velocity is small-say a foot .n clay or so-the foundation willbe perfectly safe,and water whichpasses down in cowsc of ye:lIs will be used: hut if we add ~erymaterially to the ileight, of course, that wouldincrease the velocity throqrh the fo~~ntlations and imperil the structures;so that it is a balanctng of very unltno\vn conditions at present. Mr. MAORA'I'II. The estimates thxtyour Reclanlation Service g:t~'e- Ikrce successive annual reports-respecting stor:Lge in St. hf;lry JA:~l;c IY:~S 250,000 acre-fcct at a cost of $:%O.O@O, which wonld be $1 per foot. Ah. NIWEI,L.That is entirely too low. RIr. M,u:u~rt~.You think it, wo~ildbe $5? Mr. N~zn.~.:r.r,.It would be as much as that \manse o'f cllxnge.tl labor conditions mid ollr larger laowledge of wllttt, it actually Il;zs cost for such work. MI.. Mm1unx. The proposed dm-I think his honor the governor has put his finger on this proposition in the proper place-the proposed darn is an earth dam? Mr. Nawar,~.Yes. Mr. MAGRATII.Do you still thinlr an earth dam tvould be suitable there? Mr. NE~EI,~,.It is aquestion. We have talked of an earth danl simply becausc that material is in the vicinity, andwe have also considered the quostion of putting down a cut-off wall of concrete, and the question then is foundation on which to rest that cut-off wdl. We have built some dams with cut-off mall resting on piles, andit is one of those questions which is still debatable-what would be the best form.But my general belief is anearthen dam under those conditions. Mr. MAGRATH. Assuming a cost of $5 an acre-foot and loss in seepage, do you think it is a sound economical proposition for the lands, eltller here or in Canada, to be charged with such a cost? Mr. NEWELL.There is no doubt in my mind but what it is sound economical cost. \ Mr. MAGRATH.At the $52 Mr. NEWELL.Yes. Mr. MAORATH.Or $102 Mr. NEWELL.Yes, or even $10. That is an inconceivable cost but would be a reasonable one considering the value of those lands as we develop the use of them. Mr. CTARIC.How nluch water is required for irrigation purposes per acre? 44 ST. MARY AND MILK RIVERS.

Mr. KIC\VP:LL.Under methods of irrigationhere a. very little :rmount. They have been using perhaps an acre-foot or so and sometimes as nluch as 2 acre-feet, but they haye been giving in this part of the country often not more than one irrigation-sometimes two- :mcl as they cult,ivate more intensively it, dlbring up ;I larger use of \lT:lt8er. Rh. MAGLWII. Of colwse, I always h:td in my lrlind that the reser- \.oil*..in St. R1:u.y liiwr-whicll was dealt, with in your a,nnu:tl reports. pv~ngit dollar an acre-foot--that: ifthat, was t~ reasonableprice. the11 p~*ot):tblytllc ~~ork\vould cost twice as nlt!ch today, but 1 did not, think of five t,imes :IS nlnch. 311.. NK\VELL.1 :un merely advancing that- as a figure. Mr. 1’owFm. Mr. Davis lnacle an estlmate of the cost’! Mr. Xsm~m,. Yes. We have some revised figures. 3.11..l’o\vmt,. His estimatesare considerably in excess of yotw figures. Mr. S1nvj~:m.I clo not 1)c:~rtllcul in nlind. (hver11or 111x0~.As mer(~ly:L far-fetched suggestion to the coin- ~~~issionitscklf, is it possible to create an irkernational corporation to (lo t,llin work and divide tlw new wnter practically created by th$se stoyitge possibilities-to be fed out to C:m:tdinns on one sideand Li~lterlwn farmerson tllc other! Ah. DI~AIO:.I (lo riot think I cluite caught the p1Iq)ort of the rc- III~LT~CS. (;overnor 111x0~.1 snggested possibly :l wild notion. Would it be possible to solve this question by creating an international corporation-if such :L thing merepossil)le-to do thiswork along the bonndary, charging pro rata to both parties? Mr. DRAKE.Would not it be more practical t,o have first an ex- nmination 111ttltlr to cleternline the extent to which the maters could be conservetl and the approximate cost, ant1 then to have, the two (+overnments agree to share the costbetween them in proper propor- . tion, :md leaw it to racl: Gorernment thereafter to dispose of t,he st,ore of water assigned it as might be fonnd best? I only made the sllpgtstion becaause the itlea is :L IW\V one?. Mr. SANDS. In regard to that proposition. I believe, speaking for the farmers of the valley, that they would feel that in any added burdenthey at leastought to be consulted, and I presumethey would be, but I do not beliwe they would be very favorable to any >Itltl(Atl cost for tkxtrenle nleasures in conserring that water up there. It! it, would be possible to get the Federal Government to assume that burden, it might be all right, but I do not believe the farmers here would consent to have an added burden unless absolutely necessary. Governor DIXON.Possibly Washington and Ottawa mightbe glad to contribute to this in order to get rid of this age-old controversy. It might be cheaper than B commission in the long run. Mr. GARDNER. For the information of the water users u through Ilcre, 1 117o11ld like to say that vhen this matter was f? rst to bo taken np by this commission me madeapplication to the Interior. Departmentasking that the engineer that was to be designated tomeasure these maters in connectionwith the engineer selectetl by (lanada be designatedespecially to the me of the commission and to be paid by the commission’s appropriation, and that request wasnot granted. I simplyspeak of that to show that had that been done! whatever engineering expense that has been attached to this project up through here would have been paid by the appropriation of the General Government instead of being imposed upon the individual mater users'of this project. The commission under- tookto have that brought about, and it was not granted. I may say that in connectionwith the Lake of theWoods investigation that has been done. Governor DIXON.You have a new Secretary of the Interior now. Mr. GARDNER. Yes,but they were changed once during that period of time. Thepractice in the examination of thepollution of bounchry waters was also followed out in that w\-ay-that the engineer selected to do the work vas designated to act directly under the control of antl to br paid by the commission, but in this particular case that request mas not granted. Mr. ~SBIIITH.I woul(1 suggest to the gowlmor it tlocs not arise so muchfrom the change of Secretaries as it does fromthe general ccononlic condition of the country at this time. Tl1rre was n great >pasn-an(1 a \.cry just one-a great sl'asrn of econon1y. antl it looks like, from the presenthu.tlen of taxation,it has pot toremain :I matter nf b;tric~teconomy by the N.ationa1 (hvernment : tud however strict the Secretary of the Interior may be, I n1a~7say there is it certaincommittee calletl the Committee 011 .~l,p~'ol)ri:~tionsthat, we ~vonltl have toch:lnge as wt.11 :IS the Secretary I)efore we can get. anything like liberality at this particular hollr. :131d I think it is not oply true of o11r conntry-J (lo not speak for ~":~n:~rl:~,l)nt it is cer- t:linly true of the balance of the worltl. Mr. GARDNER.If I were at liberty ta suggcst and make n manda- tory orcler, I wn~~ltlrequire tllr go~~morof theState ancl the IXrector of Irrigation in C'anacla to get together ilntl submit R plan to me that I apprehend wonltl be workable, that wonltl be equitable, would be fair. ant1 it wonltlbe fairlysatisfactory to c~ry- 1)ocl-y concerned: but, if I shonlrl isslle s11c.h t1n ortlcr, T 11ntlerstantl that either or both wmtlcl refuse. Has anyone else ~npthingthey want to 1)resent to the commissior~ ;It this time? I (lo not want anyoneto go t~wayfro111 here ant1 1)c able tosap they \rere not given a11 o1)portunityto esprws thern- S~WS. Mr.DIGNAN. Mr. Chairrn:ln, Mr. Santls has been very interesttvl in this discussion in its entirety. and if not im1)osing on the c-ommis- sion we wonld like to hear from him. Mr. GARDSER.I admonish yon that you :IIV not to appear as nttor- ney here. Mr. SANDS.It is very late, and I apl)rccinte the fact that yor~ haw heard a great deal thisafternoon. I onlywant to take 111) a 1no- ment's time with a proposition that ongkt not to take that. 'L'herv has heen a great deal of discussion here this afternoon without, t:) my mind.any definite knowledge of whatthe clifferences are. Wr (lo know thatthere is a difference of opinion 1)etween the TTnitetl States ancl Canada concerning the bonndary or the tlivision of tlw water at the boundary. As one of the early irrigators here and one of thc early stations of the \-alley, we knew at the time, we wereconsulted relative to the tlivision of the water on the terms of this treaty that, as Mr. Ererett 46 ST. MARY AXD MILK RIVERS. said, it referred to theinternational boundary maters. The first intimation we had that that was not the understanding of the Cana- llians was in 1918. We felt when we made that concession that gave to theCaIiadians half of thewaters, realizing, as we did, 80 per cent of the maters that me are dividing-that is to say, the waters that cross theinternational boundary line-that 80 percent rises in the United States, ant1 we conceded to the Canadians 60 per cent of that-31-50 I’rol)osition--ul)on thelrnderstanding and for the sole purpose of having the privilege of running the water through theMilk I

flow of all these streams that rise in the Bear Paw and LittleRockies and on the prairies here. I have a statement of the Reclamation Service, which I will put in the record, showhg that there werenearly 3,000 diversionsin 1912, and that was practically the same as in 1909, at the time t>his treaty was negotiated. In orderto determine what share of thewater th'e Canadians should have and what part we should have it would be necessary, if we adopt the contention of the Canadians, to measure all those diversions in order to determine what would be the flow at the mouth: because, of course,you would not expect us to divert that mater. We \could have to make 3,000 calculations ever day if we were to divide that water, covering a territory of 500 mi9 es long. We would have to pnt a ma.n at practlcally every one of those places. It woulcl take at least two weeks to get that data together so as to det)ermine what share of the water Canada should have and what share of the . water the Tinited States shoultl have, if the contention, as I said, that the water to he measured at the boundary is to be followed out. It seems to me that that contention and that that fact oughtbe to a very potent factor in determining the intention of the parties at the time thistreaty mas made.Surely they could not have intended that 3,000 men would have to measure these waters cvery day in order to determine what the division would be. It does not look reasonable that they would expect it,. On the other hand, theywould only have afew measuring stat'ions along the boundary and, necessarily, of course,on the heaclmaters of LodgeCreek, and Frenchman, and BattleCreek, and at St. MaryLake. That would be practicable. So that' it looks to me from a reasonable standpoint t.hat the men who made this treaty could ,not have intended that from this 'vast territory to have different measurements to det>ermine what the division sh0111d be based upon. Another feature of it, too, seems to me very strong, and that is the cost of snch a system of measurement. It wo~~ldtake 3,000 men to do it, 3,000 people to measurethese streanls in orderto knowwhat the diversions would be. The cost woulclbe excessive, and it would be everyyear anannual charge. The cost would be so muchthat it seems to meunreasonable that thesepeople who made this treaty evercontemplated that they would go to so much . trouble to determine what was the flow of thosestreams south of the boundary that never reach Canada. You are mantecl here to see the vastness of this terri,tocF! to see the impossibility, and, as I said, the impracticability of such a system of measurement.You were also invited here with the hope of showing you the streams, showing you that they were entirely dry at this. time of the year, which is a, little after our irrigation season, hut that the streams themselves are of such :I character that theyare not suitable for irrigation unless supplemented bysome othersource, usually from the mountains. If we had all the flow of materthat would naturally come down Clear Creek and Beaver * Creek and those other streams from the mountains, it would amount. to sonmthing in the Milk River. The flow has all been diverted and seldom reaches the Milk River itself, so that we can not count on anything of t'his mater source of supply in the mountain region. It. 50 ST. MARY AND MILK RIVERS. would not be sufficient, but it would help a great deal. However, that has all hen divprtecl. Nom, our only source of water supply is in the St. Mary River. We are willing to give the Canadians any water that we canwithout serious loss to ourselves,but our irrigation plants here have already cost us all that we think me carb possibly stand. We do not feel that we should go to a great deal of extra expense to create these reservoirs for the purpose of further assist- ing our neighborsacross the boundary. Ifthere is anyway by whichthe can conserve waterat their owncost, we haveno objections. %e areglad to assistthem We believe inthe irrigation of the arid lands on both sides of the line, but we do not believe we should have added to our cost any considerable sun1of money in order to afford the Canadians a further irrigation of their lands. Thewater rises on the United States side and we think we are first entitled to that and ought not to be burtlenetl further than is necessary. Mr. MAOI:ATH.Supposing you go elsewherealong this international honndary, Mr. Sands, and the water rises on the other side. Wollltl yo11 say t,he Canddians would be justified in taking the water from J-OU if they considered t,hat they llad a prior filing against it? Because along the international boundtwy that exist,s between these t,wo countries t,he water does not always flow north ; you can find places where it flows south. I would rather not discuss this question, hut it wouldbe very unfortunate if the people of Montana misunderstood the at,titude of their neigllbors. We are neighbors and me want to live side by side in the best relations. I am sure that is what nnirnntes you here, as I know it is what animates them. And you seem to speak as though you arc not familiar with what the Canadian viewpoint is. Am I right in that? Mr. SANDS.Yes, sir; yon are right; I do not thoroughly understand their viewpoint yet. Mr. MACRATH.I do not want to be put on record, but I mould be very pleased to explain it to you as I understand it,. Mr. SANDS.That was the reason that I asked thatMr. Drake explain their viewpoint. I think it is possible that we may not be quite as fur apart in our views as we think. But I wns basing my propositionupon the claims put forth last spring by Mr. Drake. We did not have any official notice of those claims; they were not made a part of the record, and I think they were withdrawn. So we have not any official notice of their claims, but at that time, I know, at least the four contentions that, I mnli-e were before those two gentlen>en, and I take it that those are a part of their claims. Mr. GARDNER.I-would say,Mr. Sands, that there were several propositionsconsidered tentatively that were just. simply put forward with the idea of determining, if possible, some mode of settlement, but they were not authoritative and they were not in the record. They were just simply matters tllnt came up to see whether some suggestionmight lead into 6ome channelwhereby we could come toan agreement. andsettle the thing. On the other hand, there were propositions that came from Mr. Drake and Mr. Davis and several others. I think I submitted one or t'wo off hand myself. They are not a part of the record but just an attempt to find some way of getting an equitable settlement. ST. MARY AND MILK RIVERS. 51 Mr. DRAKE.Mr. Chairman, I thinkin justice t80 myself andin view of the fact t~htxtmy nanle has been brought into this as having ma& cefi-ain ~~ proposals I si~otrldmake a Teq brief explanation. The commission had been at,tempting to settle this questmion and hac1 haen using its very hest efforts to tht entl. They had not at t'hattinw been ableto reach any unanimous decision as to. the merits of the case, and Mr. Davis ant1 I mere invited, not as representing the Thitecl Ytntes Gc~~-errm~cntand theCanadian Qovern- ment but, unofficially, to see if \ve coultl not suggest some method of dividing these wa.ters that ]night bo found acceptable to the Govern- ments of bothcountries. The propovalswhich were, made by Mr. Davis were his own. The propo~alswhich I made were my own. Neit,her of them mas hsetl upon the provisions of the treaty, but theywere merely attempts t,o get, together;and I donot know whet.her the Canadian Government would have supported any pro- posal that I made, and I never nntlerst,ootl for one moment that Mr. Davis be'lievetl or had reason to believe that the TJnited States Gov- ' ernment would support him. The proposals, as, Mr. Sands has said, were withdrawn. They are not a part of thc record. It was simply aa a.tt,emptto get together. It was mry nluch along the lines, if I may be permittod to say so, of Governor nixon's suggestion a moment ago that something should he done in an endeavor to harmo- nize these conflicting views. 'i'here is just one other cxp1:tnation that I would like to make. Mr. Santls has referredto the very great number of individual irrigation or water rilrllts on the southern tributaries of Milk River and thepractical impossibilit'y of determining the flow of the streams becxnsc of the necessity of measuring each of these separate diversions, as well as measuring the amount of water that flows out of. themouth of the streanrs. That there are undoubtedly many such diversions and that some measurementshould he made of each of thorn in order to determine the total run-off of eachwatershed is true, h1t the very sn111econdition obtains and has obtained for many yearswith respect to t,hese northerntributarm which have their rise inCanada, Lodge Creek, Battle Creek, White Wat'er Creek, Frenchman River, and Rock Creeik. All have their rise in Canada ancl in practically every instance there are a great ma.ny individuaI waterrights onthose streams. Kotwithstanding that, the Canadian . officials hare measured those st,reams with sufficient accuracy to be able to tell you what a.mount of water flows off at the boundary, or woulcl flow off at the houndary if it were not diverted for use in Canada, and in order to do that we have had to measure all of these sepnrhtediversions. Vl7e wantedto do it because we as aGovern- ment grant the water rights and we want to knowwhat amounts of nylter are heing taken ant1 whether the waters so taken are being 11sed. So we have an arrangementwith the owners of theditches ~~l~erebywc place :t gauge rot1 in each diversion ditch and that gauge rot1 isreat1 al!d c.orlllmrc(1by the owner of the ditch or our own men. or our own men visit these ditches from time to time and measure the (lirersions. Tn that way we have a fairly accurate record of all the (ji\rersions. It is only in that way that we can determine the total rlxn-off of the stream. And if that thing is possible on a very large scale in Canada, it should be possible to obtain similar results here. 52 ST. MARY AND MILK RIVERS. Mr. SANDS.In answer to Mr. Drake’s suggestion that it would be possible, we submit thatit would be possible to measure those streams, but we do not admit that it would be possible to measure them and to get reports within a reasonabletime to the commission that is going to make this division. We would have to have telephonesor tele- graphs. It would be almost impossible to get such reports within a reasonable time to the commission that would divide this water. The diversions made upon the Frenchman and other streams are Very small compared with the diversions made on the other streams clown here.And why would the people making that treaty have adde,d to their burden the measurement of the waters that never go into Canada antl are not in controversy? Sir William Hearst ~RSsuggested that Judge Turner at one time took a different view frommy own regardingthe priorities on Frenchman River antl Hattle Creelr. I do recall that Mr. Walsh. in letters to me ant] in conversntion with me, has taken the same view that I do, that our priorities should be included in all of thc streams that flow intothe Milk River from the north to deternline our priority in the Milk River. If Judge Turner has taken a different view, it differs very much from Mr. Walsh’s view. and, while I do not know what Judge Turnen said or what his views might be. I do know that Mr. Walsh does think and believes from a legal st’and- point that we are entitled to take into consideration these northern tributaries in determining our priorities. I have not anything further to suggest, except that I do wish the commission, if they stay over here to-morrow,mould allow us to take them out in the cars here in order that they might see some of our streams and see how vast is our territory here and how difficult it would be to follow out the suggestion made by Mr. Drake that we measure all these streams. Mr. POWELL.There is just one thing I would like to say, because there is a, possibility of ill feeling bemg created, or. if it has been created, n possibility of its being Intensified. by the presentation of an ex parte statement. I am not going to decide here and now yhich is right 01’which is wrong. V7hen you talk about Canada taking or your giving Canada a certain anlount of mater of the Milk Eiver- whether Canada is right or wrong, I am not ping to say-there are two views of internat,ional law with respect to that. One is that the riparinn owner of the State below is entitled to have the water flow tlown to him with its natural quantity subject to diminution along its course for domestic purposes. That is one view. The other view is that that is not, a right: it is :L mere matter of comity. and that the so\.ereignty of the State up above entitles it to the ownership of the water. Whether right or wrong, those are the yiews of the latest authorson international law. YourStates antl England are two countries with respect to which I might say that by inheritance they are of :1 land-grabbing disposition. Mr. SANI,~.Particularly England. Mr. POTVEI~L.Yes; especially England. It is more noticeable there. But, I am going to say this, that neither the United States nor Eng- lancl. both great peoples, with their immenselyramified trade and theircomplicated civilization, can say that weaye inconsistent in our dutywith respect to this.England took this course for the . ITnited States in respect to the St. Lawrence Rirer : “You are not . ST. MARY ANDRIVERS. MILK 53 entitled to use the St..Lawrence River ; it is absolutely ours.” Eng- land backed down from that and entered into an agreement withyou thaC the United States had the right to use the St. Lawrence for the 1)urpose of navigation to thesea. In thecase of the Ashburton treaty,or the Webster-Clayton treaty, ns’t.he Americans call it, as late as 1842, the same thing occurred in the case of the St. John River.England again put LI~that, contention and again backed clown, and to-day the American commerce has ex.act1-y the same right as the English commerce to navigate that portion of the St. John River which flows entirely and exclusively through Canadian territory. If you will read the precedents of international lam, or consult the work of your very eminent jurist, Mr. Moore. in his digest of international law, yon will find that .both. countries hare been entirely inconsistent.There isthe difficulty. If Canatltt \vats right,the water was hers; if tho United States mas right, the mater was hers. ’I’hat matter is not for us to decide. Mr. SANDS.The treaty has already determined that. Mr. POWELL.The treaty has determined that. That is not for US. The treaty has substituted a qnestion of contractual obligation for one of jurisprudential obligation which \~oultl rule where a treaty was notmade. Ourduty is a verysimple one-“to tlecide the meaning of the treaty, and thatalone. To showyou the great difficulty withwhich we are confronted, I may say this: That if language on the face of it could mean anything, the language of that treaty must certainly be clear. It says: Thr high contracting parties agree tln1t the St. ilIary ;III(~ Milk ItivcTs and their tributaries (in the Strttr of DI~II~:II~:I:untl the Provinces of Albert:t .and SnsIrntc1lew:tn) arc’ to be trtvttrtl :IS one stre:un for the purpo~c~sof irrig;ltiol~ and power, a11d thewaters thereof slr:~llhe ;tp1)ortioned rqunliy I)etw-c‘en tht. two countries. Now, Canadasays the naturtl language there is the two-river system, and you say no ; it is not the two-river system ; a part of the rirers and only a fractional part of the part it applies to. I am not saying thatyou are right or thatyou are wrong, butI am mentioning thevery difficult question for you to consider. I70u meet the Canadian contention by saying, “We have a right to go back into the history of the negotiations and show you conclusively that the contention of the high contracting parties was clear .and distinct, that only waters crossing the boundary line should be divided.” The Canadians take the ground that that would he’contrary to therules of law. It is a very serious question, a question to be decided sounilly antl according to the prmciples of lawwhich govern your emplre antl our empire, and as far as we are concerned we may not meet witlf the a proval in what we do of both sides, but I can assure you of one t {ing, that this commission will endeavor, if forced to an ad- judication, to decide on what they believe to be right as God has given them the power to see right, and it is to be hoped I think generally that the very best feeling should prevail and all animosity or warmth of feeling should be left out in a case of this kind and thematter bedecided in a calm, cool, deliberateatmosphere of judicial action. 54 ' ST.' MARY AND MILK RIVERS.

Mr. SANDS.Just one thing further, gentlemen. This matter hai been dragging since 1915. It is a matter of serious consequence to LIS because it retards the dereloprnent 0.f this valley. We would fike to have tlle nlatJter deter!uined as soon as possible. I am not criti- cizing the commission, because I think our Secretary of State at least \vas greatly responsible for a large part of this delay. I do know that by an lln-forttxnxtc letter, which hasbeen referred to here, he did say at onr time that a'ny decision reached mould not be accepted. I think that letter hasbeen withdrawn. We did our best to get himto withdraw that letter. I \vas in Washington twice and took such steps as we thought would bring about :L.clm1ge right amay, but it was not brought about. The matter has gone for six years, as I say, and I believe the people here ~vouldappreciate an early decision. If it is not possible to r:acll a decision, then we would respectfully suggest that the matter bc referrrd back to the two Governments, and that some other tribunal from perhaps other cowltries that are not interested at all cnclea,vor to try to settleit for us. We would like to have as early a decision as possible. Mr. CLARK.You are no more desirious of that than the commis- sionitself. Mr. GARDNER.Is there anything further that anybody wishes to say 8 Mr. XVERETT.There is just one thing that has not been brought to the attention of the commission that it seems to me has been over- looked. It is a serious matter in case the commission should decide to mcasure all of the streams running into the Milk River above :ts mouth,and that is wit11 reference tothis Bear Paw country. None of the gentlemen seemed to think of this matter. In my judgment., it is the most important of all. These streams, beginning with Big Sand Creek and taking in Box HlderCreek, Beaver Creek, Little Box &derCrfek, Clear Creek, and LodgeCreek, all of thosecreeks arevast mountain streams, runningthe year round withan abundance of irrigationin the mountams.They practically all sinkbefore they get to theMilk River. Those streams have been appropriated from 25 to 30 years, and they are raising all kinds of crops in the mountains, especially thousands of tons of alfalfa,to feed the sheep in that country. It is one of the biggest sheep districts in the United States. Every inch of thatwater has been used for at least 25 years. I arrived here many years ago, before any of it was taken out, and in anything like a dry year none of 'it came into Milk River. I know men who had ranches at the puths of those creeks, who took them up ex- pecting to get water from the mountains, hut the streams went dry at the mouths and the land was not very valuable. This was before thewater was appropriated in the mountains. A carefulestimate of the flow of those streams in the mountains during the irrigating. season is twice the amount of water that comes down through Milk Riverthrough Canada. If you decicle tomeasure all of those streams, those become prior rights and our Canadian friends may insist upon our taking all our prior rights out of the Bear Paw and the Rocky Mountains, and we will not have any water at all from the main'stream of the Milk River. There are at least 50,000 awes of land irrigated in those mountains from those streams. We have prior rights in our canals to those irrigators in the mountains, and

.. ST. MARY AXD MILK R,IVERS. 55 we thought of going up there many years ago and when our ditches were dryand making them turn down thewater. WC did so on some of these creeks and the water never got down. If you are going to nlcwmre Milk River at the mouth, they will insist that that water if let alone would flow into Milk River; that they are tributariesto Milk Ri+er. They are, but yonwho haw lirecl in the mountain countries of the West from Canada to Mexico lrnow that me have as fine mountain streams as you could get any- where. They go into the desert and the sand and the grad and the shale. Thesestreanis are in exactlythat condition. But you coultl riot convince our friends from Canada that if that water were not appropriated it, ~vv011ldnot go into Milk Rivw, and Tvr will he com- pellecl to n~casureit, andwhen we n~easure,it TVC will IIRTC mort watw np therc thmerer comes clown from Canatln through MilkRiver clrlr- ing the irrigating season. That will mean that we will trade 50.000 acres of irrigible land in the Milk River Valley to the Can acI' lans for those 60,000 acres that .are irrigated around the Boar 1%~Moan- tains, ant1 nevera tlrop of it could under any circumstances come into the Millr River unless you carried it in through a pipcor 21 cement-linetl ditch. Mr, Powr~:~~.Your Canadian friends across the horder will haw mighty little to do with that. The commissionwill handle that. Mr. ETEIIETT.Even if the priorities do not come in, it would only apply to measuring the waterof the Milk River. 1Mr. Powm~,.That is :I matter for the comlllission, to marshal :tml measure the water: but whatwe are afternow is to know what waters are tobe marshaled and measured. Mr. EVERETT. Do I understand, then, that this Rear Paw watw would not be measured 1 That is still an issue, is it not ? Mr. POWELL.No ; that is not an issue. Mr. EVERETT.That is settled? Mr. POIVRLL.No; because we have not reached that. The point is this: What waters shall the commission divide? Not horn they are going to divide them, except on prior appropriations. Mr. EVERETT.But what I am getting at is that there is wat& that never under any circumstances comes into Milk River. How are they going to divide that'c !Mr. Pom~m~.Wc can give that proper consideration when it comes up. Mr. GARDNER.Docs anybody else desire to address the commission before we adjourn? I thinkthat I appreciatesomewhat the dlffi- cnlty with which the commission is confronted. It is not a question of what are the possible storage facilities of these two watersheds. It is not a question of whether Canada is going to get an advantage in the division or the United States is goine to get an advantage. The question for the commission todetermine is, What were the int'ent a,nd purpose of the treaty? What mas in the contract? Wit'h everybody disputing as to what its meaning was-and we have no fountainhead that I how of to which to go to tell just, what the agreement in the treaty mas-you can see that it is something of R problem for the commission. Now, I only call your attention to these things to show you that the commission is not unmindful of the wants andneeds of the water users in tbe Milk River Valley or in Canada, and I woultl like to 56 ST. MARY ANI) MILK RIVERS. inquire again whether or not the tentative orders that thecommission have’ issued in the .past two or three years respecting the division of these waters have not been as nearly fair and equitable to you people here in the Milk River Vallcy HS we could consistently make them untilthere is nuldea final tlecision ant1 appropriations of these waters. As one member of the commission, 1 wish to say that I feel very glad of the opportunity to comeback here into your great State, where I TWS so very happily and pleasantly received and entertained a little more than a yew ago. Now, if there is anybody here at any time in this vicinity that has well-defined ideas that will assist me as a member of this commission in coming to a clear, unquestiohed conclnsion in my own mind as to whatthe high contracting parties meant,when theyentered upon the agreement set forth in Article VI, I ~vouldlike to hear them. Ilut we hare come here and found the same divergenre of mind that we have fonntl ererywhere else? and I question if there are a half dozen men in this room that could be selected, unless they were all neighbors and their interests were exactlyalike, that would agree instantly as to just how the water should be divided. I thank you for your attention and the good attendance that you have made. (*hereupon, at 6.525 o’clock p. m., the commission adjournedto meet at Lethbridge, A!berta, on Saturday, September 17, 1921.)

r,lyrlIl~l~llj~~I~,~~,~,~~~~~~a, Ls~l~~tf~l~~~~ot~17, 1,9u. I’ul*suant to :Itljoul.nn1rnt, the conuuission met in the courthousth at Letl~lwidge,Alberta, on Qdtllrday, Septenher 17, 1921, at 10 o*cIock a. nl., Mr. Magrath presiding. Present : ~’lltu-les,2. Magrath: ObadiahGardner; Henry A. Po~vell,I<. C. : C’larence D. Clark: Sir Williilul Hrarst., K. C.. Ail. G. : hf. A. Smith : t~ntl1Villi:lnl 1%.Smith, secretary.

.\i*1’E.i1<.\Nces. 0 V. Meek, Conlnlissioner of Irrigation, Ottawa. E. F. Drake, S11perintcntlent of Irrigation, Ottawa, Canada. F. H. Newell, consultingengineer, TJnited StatesReclamation Service, Washington, D. C. W. J. Egleston, counsel for rec1t~rn;ttion service of Montana, Grand Falls, Mont. C. S. Hcidel, State engineer, HelenR, Mont. George Stratton, United Stat,es Reclamation Service. R. M. Snell, United St,ates Recl~mat,ion Service. G. R. Marnoch, clltlirnlxn of t,he Irrigation Developulent Associtk- 1-ion of Lethbridge, and vice prcsitlent of t,he Western Canadian Irri- gation Associc‘I t‘1011. W. H. Fairfield,superintendent Doininion experimental farm, Lethbridge, Alberta. H. S. Allen, Raymond, Alberta. F. S. Leffingmell, Warner, Alberta. Lawrence Peterson, Taber, *4lbert:t. Chris. ,Tensen, Magrath, Alberta. Roi W. Risinger, New Dayton, Alberta. ST, MARY AND MILK RIVERS. 57 58 ST. ANDMARY MTLK. R'IVERS. The contention of Canada in this case is that the priorities are to be takenout by each country from the respect,ive streamsand thebalance of thewater divided equally between them.The contention of the United States is that the priorities are to he taken out of the half share of each colmtrg. A very wide cliffcrence again. We have had as a commission three different hearings ; we have had arguments from leading counsel from both countrles; and the farther we travel along the road the greater our difficulties became. We have had delays owing to changes and vacancies on the commission. We have had one of the (:overnments tell 11s that if we did not agree to the view held by it our decisionwould be of no effect. That held us up for about two years. We have called in the officers of theReclamation Services of bothcountries. They have labored faithfully to help us find a solution, but without results. Tho State of Montanaasked us for a hearing.We were at Chinooktwo days ago and gave them a hearing,and we decided to do the same with you people here. We are here for that purpose this morning, and I think I can say to you that we have reached the point where if we ,fail at a very early date to solve this knotty problem we will send it back to the two Governments and ask them to be good enough to tell us what they mean by the language contained in Article VI of the treaty. That is about all I have to say in opening the meeting, gentlemen. You appreciate that your neighbors on the other side of the linefeel as stronglyas yon doin respect to these maters. They have a local viewpoint and doubtless you have a local viewpoint, but I amquite confident from past experience in this district among you gentlemen that you will take a very liberal view of the situation and that you will always remember khat you are good neighbors and it is desirable to reach a fair and reasonable settlement in connectionwith this c&roversy. It wasvery gratifying to the members of this commission atthe meeting at Chinook the other day to hear the Governor of Montana speak in a broad, generous spirit in regard to thisquestion. He urged us to do all in our power to bring thls question to a settlement, and I can tlssure you that that has been the wish of the commission fromthe first. I canfurther . assure you that we have not delayed. We have becln just as anxious as yon have to reacha settlement, but the difficulties have been peat. Now, I am going to take the liberty of reading to you a letter which has been placed in my hands from the premier of the Prov- ince addressed to this commission. It is as follows: OFFICE 013' TIIE PREXITER, Edmmtolz, September 16, 1321. ~ENTI,EMEN:Irlformation has reachedthe government of theProvince of Alberta that it is the intcrllion of your conmlission to sit in the city of 1,eth- bridge at 70 a. In. tomorrow, Satnrdag, September the l'ith, in ronnection with the question of the division of the waters cf the Milk Itiver and the St. Mary River. Thequestion itself' is one between theGorcrnments of Canada and of the United States. The case has, according to our information, alreatly been quite fully presented and argued. It therefore is not the desire or intention of the government of Alberta on the occasion of this sitting of your commission within tlie I'rovince to present any furthermaterial. I wish,however, to takethe opportunity of bringingto your attention the fact that an early clecision' in regard to the Mill< Iliver and St. Mary River is earnestly hoped for by the government and the people of the Province of Alberta. ST. ,MARY AND MILK RIVERS. 59

It is fact,-&& whichwill doubtless be evident to youafter your \-isit to tlrc Province,that irrigation development is entirely at a StundStill Until your commission n~nlrmits decisiun. The success and,in fact, the necessity of irrigation in the territory served by thesestreams llas been a1riI)ly ctenlonstrated. The 1tecl;mlation Service of the Dominion of Canada has maderery complete surveys of theterritory. The provincialgovernment has providedvery conlpletemrlchinery for the formation and administration of coogerntive irrigation districts properly super- vised. The lands are practically all occupied nnd the people allnost unanimous in their desire to proceed to form districts and construct their irrigation works. Nothing further can be done until your commission reaches n decision and it is lcnown what water is avaiIable.Each season sees water of tremendous value passing tlomn thestreams and going to waste. In themeantime unfrtvornhle conditions for dry fnrming rentler existence for settlers precarious. Your sitting in Lethbridge will enable you to ascertain these conditions for yourselves. and your visit is thereforeappreciated. I desire to express the hope ttlat you will take the opportunity to gct full information, so th:tt ilIl early decision mag be rcach~tl. Yours very truly, H. GREENFIELD. Nom, gentleman, the meeting is open, and I understand that it is the intentionof Mr. Marnoch to address thecommission. STATEMENT OF MR. G. R. MARNOCH, CHAIRMAN OF THE IRRI- GATION DEVEMPPENT ASSOCIATION OF LETHBRIDGE AND VICEPRESIDENT OF THEWESTERN CANADIAN IRRIGATIO3l ASSOCIATION. Mr. MAKNOC!I.Mr. Chairman and members of the commission, I have to introduce myself by saying that my name is G. R. Marnoch. I am chairman of an irrigation development association which em- braces the farmers and business men of the territory surrounding Lethbridge. I am honorary vice president of the Western Canadian Irrigation Association, an associationwhich takes a wide view in regard to irrigation matters and holds yearly meetings in alternative years in British Columbia and in the prairie Provinces, and I was until a few months ago, when I retired from that office, president of t,he Board of Trade of the City of Lethbridge. It has always been and still is the desire of the mendxrs of that board of trade to be thorougllly interested-and, indeed, we can not help being-in the progress of our agricultural industry, because we realize that it is our chief industry in this Province. Before I proceed withthe few remarks that I wish tomake I should like to direct the attention of the commission to these maps, which give some general idea of the extent of irrigation development in this Province of Alberta. The map is rather dim, and I think the onlyuse we can make of it is for the commission to have a little examination of it afterwards. It represents tt territory of about 180 miles square.Here, eentle- men, is (‘Iout-ts[indicating], where you crossed the line into Cmada yesterday.Here [indicating1 is Lethbriclge. Calgary is up inthe quarter here [indicating]. That is about 150 miles from Lethbridge, roughly speaking. You will see that a very large part of that area is covered, or can be covered, by irrigation development. The areas marked in yellow show that portion that is under development now. The canals are all constructed and these farther northern areas are proceedingvery rapidly. This portion [indicating] around Leth- bridge, and Raymond and Magrath is the old development under the 60 ST. MARY AND MILK RIVERS. St. Mary Hiver wu,terl with which you are familiar. These other blue areas over here lIindlcating] are those areas that can be served by an extension of the use of t.he St. Mary water. There are other districts. This one in green [indicating], for inst.ance, t,o the northwest of Lethbridge is the Lethbridge northern district,, containing100,000 acres of irngable land, and upon which construction is proceeding very rapicllynow. Thereare two &her districts farther west and southwest of Lethbridge, one of which is moving toward construction, :~nd the other willbe very shortly. This one farther south [in- dicatingj containintraboltt ‘25,OOO acres of irrigxbleland and the other to the north oPthat about 50,000 acres. Sir W~I~AMHEARS”. From what streams will the waters be obtained for these district,s which you have last mentioned? Mr. Maltxoc~~.They come fromthe Belly River, which is not ru~lertliscussion. Mr. 1’01y1m,. Hav&yon any color design on the map representing the tmvt that will be served by the St. Mary River and the Belly River? Mr. MAI~NOC~II.There is a slight difference in the color. tion indicated in blue here represents the areas that be can servec Y- by a further extensionof the uses of the St. Mary water. sir ~%‘Ir,r2TAivHEARST. That is, you hare marked in blue the portion that canbe served by St. Mary water? Mr. MARNOCII.Yes, sir. Mr. I’ow~r,~.Where are the. two extension tract’s from the north a’ntl northwest ? Horn are they served? Mr. MARXOCH.They are served from the mater of the Born River. Mr. POWELL.That river asses through Calgary? Mr. MAIW~~II.Yes. I& haveanother map, to which we will refer later on. and which shows more clearly the St. Mar Mr. (’IARK. What is your totalarea covered by the 4L. t. ‘der* Mary, or sought to be covered by it? Mr. MARNOPII.I n-ould likt. Mr. Ihdw to answer that question. Mr. I)R.\KK.Very roughly, :%0,000 to 400,000 acres,besides the tract tllat is irrigated from the Aillwrt;i Railw;-ay & Irrigat,ion Co.’s cxnnl. ‘I’lutt tmct conlprises nhollt, 130,000 a~res. Mr. l’hvmr,. Wl1:1t frc!cls tllRt c.anal ? Mr. I)IL\I~.The St. &hry River. If Mr. 3Iarnoch will pardon we, t.lw 1,ethhritlgc northern district, to which he refers as contsin- ing about, 100,000 acres; is notJ irrigate)d from the St. Mary River but from thc. Old Man River, tlle waters of which are, not in controversy. Mr. (’L.\I~K. 1 :1111 re-f~rri11.g onlyto the portion nlarked in blue, the anlo1Int whita11 has to he comred, if cwrered at all, by the St. M~ry River. Mr. I~AKR.Thnl 350.000 to 400,000 acresaside from the tract now being irrigated, which is about 130.000. Mr. l’ow~.:r,r,.The Old Man makes its rise in the Rockies? Mr. DRAKE.Yes, sir. Mr. KMITII. As I understand it, the yellow port,ion represents the land now ditched and having water already on it. Mr. MARNOCII.Yes, sir. Mr. SnrITEI. How mnch of theland represented by the yellow portion of the map is now receiving mater? ST. MARY AND MILK RIVERS. 61

Mr. II-ZARNWH. Do you malt the tmcts that we served with, St. Mary water Mr. SMITH.I mean the St. Mary River. Mr. MARNOCH.That is fully developed. Mr. SMITH.All of the yellow portion ? Mr. MARNOCII.Yes, sir; all of the yellow portion is served from tllr St. Mary. This other portion is served froin the Bow River. Mr. SMITH.What does the extreme northwestern section of that nlap represent; lands irrigated from the St. Mary? Mr. M~ic~oorr.No, sir ; lands irrigated from the 130~River. Mr. Snrmr. 'l'he portion served by the St. Mary is only the lower port,ion ? 1Mr. MARNOCII.Yes, sir; and excloding anything \vest, of this line l~indicating]. That is sho-cvn more clearly on that. other ma . hlr. Scj,lmx. The yellow portionis irrigated from the it. Mary R,iver Z Mr. MBIINOCII.Yes, sir. Mr. SMITH.And that portion represented in blue is susceptible of irri ration from the St. Mary River! 8r. MARNOCH. Yes, sir. Mr. SMITXI.And that is w1~e1-eyon wish to extend the water when you get enough of it? Mr. MARNOCH. Yes, sir. Mr. Sarmr. How- many acres are inclntled in the prllow to wb,ich you have referred? Mr. MARNOCH. Roughly speaking,I:N,OOO acres. Mr. P~TVEI,L.Is that yellow tract which now utilizes the water- expressing it that may-is that continuous or are there elevations and depressions, the depressions beingcovered and the elevations not being reached ? Mr. MARNOCH. The general layof the land is very favorable to the use of irrigation. There are not many depressions that are not covered. Mr. P~~ELL.It would be substantially correct, then. to say that it is all covered? ?Mr. MnRNocEr. That portion marked in yellow is covered. Now, 1 wonldlike to say that our DominionGovernment has made very, rrry close surveys of all those areas. Mr. POIVEIL. Before you pass to that. These lower tracts, other thanthe blue, fromwhat source do youpropose to flood orirrigate . those '1 Mr. MARNOCII.We hope that as a result of the co~~~n~ission's sitting here and of those negotiations, if they go forward, that were SU~- gested by (+overnor Dixon, that mater may be gotten from the St. Mary River to water those tracts. Mr. POWELL.Do you contemplate that it would drav any water from the Milk River foreirrigating any of those tracts? Mr.MARNOCH. Forthis small tract here [indicating] around Milk River and Warner, that little piece only of all those, would require some water from the Milk River. Mr. CLARK. About 20,000 acres 8 Mr. MARNOCH. About 20,000 acres. Mr. POWELL.And those two irregularly shaped tracts to the eastof that, from what source would they derive mater? 62 ST. MARY AND MILK RIVERS. Mr. MARNOCH.We hope that they may also get water from the St. Ala'ry River. J1r. I'OTVEIJ~.Where is the St. Mary River indicated on that map? 311.. MARNOCH. Here is where it crosses the international boundary xntl it winds down as I indicate. MI., ]J'~)WF,LL.And you think they can carry the water away over there ? Xr. MARNOCH. Yes. Therewould besome local reservoiring 11t.crsar;vto take care of the flood waters and make the best use of them. Mr. POWEI~I,.You contemplate getting it through, however? Mr. IS'IARNOCIL Yes, sir. The people of this Province as a whole have, through the action of their Government, placed their seal upon the order for progress of allrightly conceived irrigation development. TheAlberta gov- ernmenthas fully guaranteed the bontls for theconstruction of theLethbridge northern irrigation tlistrict, which it isestimated will cost about $5,000,000. Bondshave actually been sold for S~,~OO,OOO,and construction is proceedingvery rapidly. Other projectsare likely to proceetl veryshortly. I hare mentioned this so that it may be noted that, in talking of further irrigation developments, such as may be proceeded with whenever this international. question is settled, we are not talking acaclemically but very prac. tically. We are very glad to see the International Joint Commission here ill Lethbridge, although we had not thought of asking them to come he re. Our case is complete. We feel that we need not attempt to adtl anything in the presentation of the case as made at previous hearings as to the meaning and intent of the treaty. We feel entirely satisfied that justice will be done. I should like to refer to some of the wise words of the late Mr. Tawney,one of the 'IJnited States members of the commmission during the hearing at St. Paul in 1915. I-Ie said: It nlust be aplmrent to evergone that in this m:lt,ter tlle commission has an exceedinglydelicate and important problem to deal with.This comnission has been crented not only for the purpose of settling disputes which lung arise 1)tttmeen eithercountry or the people of eithercountry, but also for the ~~urposeof preventing disputes between these countries and these peoples, ant1 so far our effortshave been attendedwith unnsual and most gratifying s1Ic- cess. There has hitherto been no diflerencc of opinion among the members theco~n~nnlission, ant1 therehas heen no feeling of irritationbetween the ~)eopleof thc twocountries who have appeared before the c:olnmission. 1 know thatit will be the effort of thc commission toconsider the record whichhas been presentedto it in this case, regardless of whether we :tgree withthis side or withthat. nntl to workout the brst soluution we possibly ctln. Governor Glenn has n-ell said,we art? notthe representatires of eitherGovernment, we are constituted jutlgcs for 1)ot.h Governments. Illtl each of them has an equal right to expect from 11s tliligence ant1 integrity of purposein reaching tlie very best judgment we' can inrespect to questions of tliffercncethnt may divide the people on bothsides of the line ill reqxvt to this or any other matter within our jurisdiction. Again he said: It has been theeffort of the conmmission, to ai€or(l the people of both countriesevery possible opportunity for conferenceamong themselves, with a view toreaching a common understandingwith reference to any mutters of cli&rence that might exist between them or between the Governn~ents.' ST. MARY AND MILK RJYERS. 88: Further, he remarked that- Thus far the International Joint Commission has approached the conaidera- tion of almcwt: every question that hoe been submitted b it, not as partWns or litigants or contestants but more in that apirit of friendship and cordiality that should have, and always hns existed between these two countries, and we are glad to say that that has been the spirit in which those appearing before the eonlmission have always eonsidered nnb eon&&ed themsdves throughout the hearing. I wodd just like to remarkROW that I do not ahme for a miimant to speak for the Canadian Governmentor for the CahadianReclama- tion Service, but I am just trying to place before ,you the plain view of the people of this district. It can hardly be said that we are unduly inpatient 'for a 'setiie- ment of this important question that is before the commission, and I would like to take a moment or two to makesome references to, the chronolp of the situation. Our ontana friends, by their disclosure at Chinook of what they honestly believe to be the history of the case, indicated some serious misconceptionswhich should be clearedup. Their minds appear to goback only as far as the treaty made in1909 and ratified in 1910. That is only a decade ago. But the history of this matter tury ; and during all seeking what did not understanding with her possible development of for irrigation, to end with. The Canadian Government took up this matter with the United States for the first time as far back as in the early days of 1896, andthen made the suggestion that an international commission might be appointed for the purpose of bringing the two countries in conferenceon matters relating to international waters. !She members of the commission will remember (it is printed in the record ' of the St. Paul hearing on page 57 that Canada received the repIy that the United States did not lac k interest in this important subject; made reference to the communication from Canada as a cour- teousrequest, but gavethe answer that expression could not be given to the views of the United States Government upon the subject at that time. What caused that suggestion to be sent from Canada was quite evidently the proposals that the Galt interests in Lethbridge had in mind with regard to irrigation development on someof the lands belonging to the Canadian Northwest Co., whichlater on became the Alberta Railway & Irrigation Co., and later still was acquired by the Canadian Pacific Railway Co. The purpose that that Cana- dian company had in mind was purely one of business progress in theirundertakings. The company was founded originally to de- velopthe coalresources, thenvery undefined, afound Lethbridge. As the coal became available in increasing.quant1ty from the mlne the company had to build narrow-gauge rallways to get the coal to market. The policy of the Canadian Government then was to en- couragesuch early development by anting lands to companies that were enterprising enough to buil rsuch railways, and thus the 2500(3"28---6 84 ST. MARY ,AND MILK RIVER% company became owners of considerable tracts of land. Nothing.had beendone atthat early date to developgrain farming, and the directors of the company wiselyconceived the idea of getting the lands. underirrigation. -The Galts were eople of IScotch descent, and we may presume that the. caution w Rich was inborn in thepl causedthem to make. diligentinquiries as tothe absolute safety from interference in regardto the prime source of the water supply ; and we may conceive that they were,satisfied from the nature of the reply from the United States that there would be nosuch interference..They duly got their appropriation rights recorded with the Government of Canada. The company had its early financial troubles, tkd, in fact, the construction of the canals would have been irp assible if the company had not been able to ,make a'rrangernents Pwit1 &me of the people belonging to the Mormon Church in Utahwllo were induced at one and thesame time to assist inthe construction of thecanals and to colonize the lands. It sounds ridiculous nowadays to recall the fact' that these first farmers from the United States actually acquired their'lands at theprice of $8 per acre, one-half of which they drew as grub-stake pay, the other half, being carried to their credit as a land payment. What I have said is surely all that is required in corroboration of the statement fiat I nqke that theGalts wanted the waterfor actual iriigation dpvelopnumt ; and that they acquired their rights at a time when the United States hadno notion whatever of utihzing any of the St. Mary water. The Canadian canal was put into service in1900 ; one of our Leth- bridge residents showed me the other day copies of the original tale- grams that came down the narrow-gauge railway lines service regarding the aclvsnt of the watpr. we heqdsome references at Chinook, I think, to ripazian law in European countries, and, although I am not learned in international law and am not a lawyer, it is generally understood that it would be a veiy ;extraordinary thing for one European country to divert into another watershed water from a stream that should continue on its own piatershed into another count ; while on this contlnent, or at least as far as the UnitedStHtes an7 Ca,nada are concerned, we agree on' the fundamentals.of irrigation law and the undoubted rights of prior agpropriation. The first p,ublic reference in the United States Reclamation Service reports to proposals to divert St. Mary waters on the south, side of the boundary line appear to give full recognition to Canada's prior right for in the third report, 19Q3-4, of the United States Reelama- tion gervice, page280, you will find the paragraph: To thoroughly settlethe question of water diversion from St. Mary River ' and Milk Elver, it mill grobably be pecessary to come t,o sonic international agreement with Canada. This cguntry [the United States] has the advantage of storage in St. Mary Lakes by the construction of the St. Mary Dam, in which the flood waters of. this stream can be conserved and afterwards used for irrigation purposes. An agreement might be made withthe Canadian Goy rnpentto allow to pass downwithout diversion thewater turned into the Lgfi 1:iv: on condition that the Canadian canal froni St. Mary River will be,i?ur ?sfled sufficient water from the St. Mary Reservoir. %ken later on the'actual diversion of the St. Mary water into the Milk River watershed was proceeded with by the United States with- ST. MARY AND

Rutand this is the bigbut-if ways and means can be suggested 1- for a better and fullw use of water that are now, to our shame-the shame of two great Nations-being allowed to run to waste, we, the people on this side of the boundary, are very ready and willing to welcome such proposals as were suggested on Thursday that would lead to a fullerand more profitable use of theavailable waters by . both countries, and we would be very glad indeed to learn that they were being carefully consideredby the Governments. We were very much impre,ssed, those of us who were able to be at Chinook, by the s irit of fairness thak was so ably expressed by Gov- ernor Dixon of Bfontana, and we are hopeful that the tentative suggestion thrown out by him will receive careful and, above all, prompt attent'ion. Mr. POWELL.Maybe 1 misunderstood you, but you made reference to communications between Qalt and the Americans with respect t'o an assurance as to the use of the St.' Mary River. Mr. MARNOCH.No; I do not think I made any reference to communications hetween Galt and the United St,ates; but, of course, the international question ha'd been mooted by Canada in 1896, and my inference was that Galt was satisfied from the reply that was received that there would be no interference whatever with the St. Mary water. Mr. POWELL.That is what T am referring to, Have those writings been preserved, or were they merely oral communications? Mr. MARNOCH.I think you will find them all set out very exten- sively in the record. Sir WILIJAMHEAHW. Mr. Marnoch refers to the diplomatic corre- spondence between the Government at Washington and the Govern- ment .at Ottawa. He has drawn the.deductionthat the Galt interests ... I I , 66 ST. MARY AND MILK EWER% would not have gone on with this development had they not been satisfied as to what their rights were. Mr. MARNOCH. Yes, sir. Mr. CLARK.Let me ask you this question: Suppose the entire flow of the St. Mar River were allowed to cross the boundary into Can- ada. Would t73 at flow, the natural flow, be sufficient to irrigate all . the landsyou have in contemplation irrigating here? Mr. MARNOCH.I think so. That is an engineering question which I would like to.refer to Mr. Drake or some of his officers. I mn neither a lawyer nor an engineer. Mr. DRAKE.No, sir; it would not. Mr. CLARE. You would have to supplement that by storage? Mr. DRAKE.Not only would we have to supplement it by storage, but by the flow of other rivers to the west, the Belly River and the W aterton River. Waterton .. This is what would happen, sir: You would have to take water from the Waterton River over here [indicating on the map], bring it across to the Belly River here, and bring that in turnacross to the St. Mary River, and then take out the combinedflow.of these streams and by means of a system of canals and reservoirs irrigate this land to which Mr. Marnoch has referred. Mr. POWELL.Would those united streams afford an ample supply for that purpose? Mr. DRAKE.It would depend upon what you mean by" ample sup- *. ply." All the flow of allthose rivers would be insufficient to irrigate all the land that is irrigible and that needs to be irrigated, but it would go some distance. Mr. MARNOCH.Mr. Chairman, I would like, if you will permit me, to take the office of official introducer now. I would like to say that thenext speaker, Mr. W. H. Fairfield, is su erintendent of the Dominion Experimental Farm at Lethbridge,a farm of very considerable extent which conducts research work and demonstration in irrigation farming and dry farming to the very great profit of the settlers in this district. Mr. Fairfield has been in this district ever since irrigation water first came down and is fully cdmpetent to give you information as to the development which has taken place under it. All of the peole in1 this district, the farmers especially, have great confidence in %/r r. Fairfield. STATEMEMT 'OF MR. W. R. FAIBFIELD, SUPEEINTENDEWT DO- XIBIOB EXPERIMEHTAL FAR=, LETHBRIMIE, ALBERTA. Mr. FAIRFIELD.Mr. Chairman and members of the commission, I do not propose to take up ve much of your time. There were just two thoughts that It occurrK to me I might bring out. One W~L~Y the development and the reason for the development of the sentiment in favorof irrigation which is so thoroughly unanimous among the farmers in this end of the Province ; and the other was to giye you some facts in regard to what it really means to the farmers in the way of difference in the amount that they can produce on their dry and irrigated lands. During thedecade just preceding the war the Canadian Northwest was favored with a big settlement, a large immigration. This part of the Province received it>sshare of this settlement, with the result ST. MARY AND MJLK B'IVERS. 67

that practically all of the lands int,he southern portion of the Prov- ince, or the area that a articularly interested in this morning, was really settled LIP, and'e are a1 f the area except the irrigation scheme of the Alberta Railway c!! Irrigation Co. was developed under dryfarming conditions. Although the farmers met with favorable seasons, there were a number of Seasons where their results were very disappointing. The) -hac1 the opportunity of ot-tserving the results that were obtained 01, the irrigated lands in the Lethbridge district or under the Albert'b R'ailwry & 1rrigat)ionsystem, with the result that the sentiment rew from year to ye stronglyin favor of irrigation. In fact, the dry years have ar rea ly culminated in the last foiur or five years that harebeen extremely dry ; until nom the farmers, although they came here not RS irrigating farmers but with the ideaof raising grain or trying dry farming, are absolutely unanimous in their de- termination to utilize all of the water that is available to them in the streams passing through the land. As Mr. Marnoch has said, I have had charge of the Dominion Experimental Farm since it was established here, something over a dozen years ago. Half o,f that farm of about 400 acres is devoted to experiments in d1.y farming. The other 'half can be irrigated, and we are carrying on investigations trying to solve the problems that confront the farmers on irrigated lands. We have compiled in the form of tables the results that we obtained from the same crops grown under thebest dry-farming system that we could adopt and under irrigation. To save time, I will pass around co ies of the table showing the comparative results. (The taheabove referred to is as follows:)

Comparative reeults in crop8 gwnm ort dryland and iwigated lama at the eapw4mentc11 etation, southern Alberta, giudng @el& per awe.

Potato (Irish Oats (Banner). Cobbler). __ Dry. Dry. land. land. e2

" Bw. Bua. BW. BW. Bus. Bus. 1808...... I I 43 80 RR 92 235 1909...... 56 77 159 805 1910...... $ 21 6R 103 521 1911...... !I 356 508 1912...... ("28 "'77 (?45 296 ,501 1913 ...... 25 '"5052 71 115 195 483 1914 ...... 5424 49 113 495 400 1915 ...... 63 94 143 81 283 447 1910...... 48 71 118 157 475 530 1917 ...... 28 48 66 128 157 465 1918 ...... 14 62 24 104 93 505 I-I- I-I- "" "- Average 11 yeers...... 30 70 43 78 487 237 .53 ~ Increase due to irri- 27 41 gation: Bushels...... 21 ...... 35 ...... 14 ...... 250 Per cent,...... 77 ...... 81 ...... 1 ...... 105 I - . . "" ""

1 Hailed.

111 all cases (exceptpotatoes) the results are obtained from 1.6O-acre plats. On this uccount theyields are higher than would probably have been the casehad the fieldsbeen larger. Thecomparative results are no doubt the 68 ST. MARY AND MILK RIVERS. same-i. e., the per cent of increase due to irtigatfou is tile same as would have been the case llad the fields been larger. Or1 the dry lantl the crops were in all cases planted on sunl~lierfallow land. On the irrigated land the grain crops were grown on land that had raised 11 hoed crop of ROIIICL kind the year previous, and the potatoes were usually planted on grtlin lmd. Mr. FAIRFIELD.One of thereasogs for compiling this table was that some of thefarmers said, “In wetyea,rs we getmarvelous crops. What are we going to get in dry years?” Everybody knows- that irrigation pays. Rut by taking the average of 11 years from 1908 to 1918”and I might.say that the, last 3 yearshave not been added to this because the results would show up the dry-land farming worse-you willnote thatin those 11 years we have an increase of 23 bushels of wheat, 38 bushels of oats, 35 bushels of barley, 14 bushels of pas, and practically double our potato yield. This was withthe crops with which thedry-land farmer was dealing.The dry-land farmer could notsuccessfully produce forage crops in the same way that he could produce grain, and no comparisons were made with the growing of alfalfa or timothy or anything of that kind. I merely mention this to indicate to you just why the farmers in southern Alberta are so unanimous in wanting to get irrigation. As has been mentioned, there is a large area, of over 100,000 acres to the west of the city which, is served entirely by an all-Canadiap scheme that is being developed at, roughly speaking, about $50 ,an acre. Theprovincial government is guaranteeing the bonds for thisproject, which is well under way. Theonly reason that the area in the soutlleasterlydirection from,Lethbridpe has not been developed is because there has been this contention in regard to the water. I think some ,of the farmers that will address you will impress you far better than I can with the way they feel in regard to the matter.We have, hadvery dry ieasons and the fa.rmers feel that unless they can get irrigatwn water and develop some of this land by irrigation-I do not know whether it is safe for me to say that a good many of them mill move out, but I can safely say that they realize that they are in a most serious predicament unless more development can lle carried out with irrigation. I do not think that I have an thing further to say. Mr. I&WELL. Does the irrigation of a portion of a farm enable ou to make use of the balance in the way that you otherwise would le unable to make LIS of it? Does it assist the nnirrigated portion? Mr. FAIRFIELD.yes. If I may answer that in another way, it in- creases the value of the other. If the farmer could take his average results for 10 years, he ~voultlfind that in some years he would have bumper crops andin others his crops would be very poor. It is not human nature to save enough money from t,he fat years to carry one through the1 lean years. and the result is that during those dry yearsthe farmer isin a had position. If there were 25 percent of hisland irrigated, hewould have insurance on that. That wouldcarry him over, and consequently wouldmake farming on tlry lantl profitable. Mr. POWELI~.That is what I had in mind, that this WOI~~throw him over the critical periods and enable him to make use probably of the unirrigated portion, which otherwise would not support, him. ST. MARY AND MILK RIVERS. 69 Mr. FAIRFIELD.I think that is one of the biggest-adv-antqp that many of US had in mind, just that point that you have brought out. Mr. CLARK. Mr. Fairfield, I call your attention to your 1915 sta- tistics here, where there is a misprint or an exception to the rule. You have noted 143 bushels under the dry farming of oats and but 81 bushels under the irrigated fanningof oats. Mr. FAIRFIELD.Yes, sir; that is exactly true. Mr. CLARK. Whatis the explanation of that? Mr. FAIRFIEZD.Our oatsgrew so heavy on theirrigated lands that they lodged andwe could not harvest them. Mr. POWEIJ,.Just as a matter of curiosity, is that the very limit of production of your prairiesunder the most favorablecircum- stances, that one hundred odd bushels per acre? Mr. FAIRFIELD.In explaining those figures I might say that we never started with an idea of comparing the lands irrigated and dry lands.We operated .the farmsas two distinct farms, and we did not attempt to make any comparison between them. But when this question came up a few years ago in going back over our records to get these data we had to get some crops grown every year; we hadto take it from small plots rather than from our fields, and these are the yields from sma’ll plots, all the same size and all the samecrops for theentire length of time.The yields would be higher from those plots than fromour field conditions, but we assume that the percentage of .increase would remain the same. Mr. .CLARK.Mr. Fairfield, we have rather come to the conclusion thatdry farming is a progressive science andthat it isreally a business to which the farmer must be educated either by his own experience or otherwise. Has your experience up here tauiht you thatin successive yearsdry farming with the same amount of moisture might increase the yield So it would become more profitable as the years go by from the knowledge that a man got from his experience from pear to year? Do you get.my meaning? Mr. FAIRFIELD.Yes. Wecertainly know more about dry farming now than we did 20 years ago. If this land had, been settled up 25 years ago with the methods that the farmers ordinarily followed then, that is, not ,using the summer fallow, they would have had the results that they get now; but, on the other hand, to offset that, we began with the virgin fertility which has been stored up for countless years, and we have that to benefit our first crops. That will offset, in a measure, the knowledge that we will gain by experience, but certainly we are gaining and it will be possible, we hope, to produce more on dry land in the future than we are able to do now. e Mr. POWELL,,Are your prairie lands which are unfertilized showing, as time goes by, any diminution of productiveness! Mr. FAIRFIELD.Not in fertility ; they are in the physical, texture. Wecan not follow the same methods because soil drifting comes in and we have to use different crops which to-day appear to overcome that condition. Mr. POWELL.,Rotation of crops, I suppose. Mr. FAIRFIELD.Yes, sir. Mr. MARNOCH.Mr. H. S. Allen is present. He presents the case from Raymond. He is chairman, I think, of the hoard of trustees of the irrigation district formed there, called the “ Southern Irriga- tion District.” 70 BY, MARY AND MILK RNERS. $!CATEXEIPT OF H. S. ALLEN, OF BgYa60BD, ALBERTA. Mr. Chairman,members of the commission,you have been so many Tars trying to solve this problem that I do not know that 1 caneIp you out ver much thls morning, but I can perhaps tell you how our peo le fee.I about it. My name is A Plen, and I am chairman of the Southern Irrigation District.That is a little district that is formeddown near that lower yellow spot there [indicating on map]-takes in all that blue around that little ellow spot, out 20 miles south of here. Mr. MAGRATH.f'ributary to Raymond. Mr. ALLEN.It includesRaymond. That is about 20 milessouth of here, and we have under irrigation there about 10,000 acres, but it is not enough. We have in this new irrigation district that has been formedabout 190,000 acres, abouthalf of whichcould be irrigated if we had water. It is a question of water, and that water would come from the St. Mary or perhaps be supplemented a little, as Mr. Drake suggested, from these other rivers. You understand, whenthey have shown you themap, there is notenough water around to irrigate this whole countr . If we had every drop of it it would only irrigate a little bit of t Ee country, and, as a gentleman suggested here, we will always have to practice dry farming to a certain extent. I came from the United States. I am an American b birth and a Canadian by adoption. I have been here 33 years. Wten I came here from Montana, Alberta was just a field of gram. We could go out and cut grass,any place, and, of course, the could get hay any place, and irrigatlon in those days was not SUChy a factor as it is at tli6 present time for the country, because cattle could live out on the range all winter. You koow our ranges are etting depleted, and it does not come back very quick, and we nee8 irrigation to produce fodder for the winter so that when we get a bad season like we had two years ago we would not 'have to iwport hay from Washington and pay.$60 a ton * aqd th? people just now have 'woke up to the fact that they need ad the irrl ation they can I have watched the deve fopment of the fkrta Railway & Irri- gation system for the last 20 years. I was connected with the build- m of thecanal 23 years avo, and ow peopleerected that. I am a kormon and we came and introduced irrigation in this partof the country. We had so much grass then that we did not know how to appreciate water20 years ago, butwe do now. And so our people here, when they formed this southern irrigation district nearly two years ago, had nearly 200 families vote on the proposition, and they all voted to form the district, which would utlmately lead to the opening of the land, in order to get water if there is water available. But there is a good deal of water running down the St. Mary Rlver and Milk River that goes to waste, and the farmers feel that this question ought to be settled, and that the pebple in Montana ought to get all the water they are entitledto, and ways and means ought to be provided to store it up so that every drop of it could be used. It is too bad to see St. Mary River water running down there in May and June that goes to waste. Thereought to bereservoirs some place, and if the St. Mary River could be reservoired over in the ST. MARY AND MILK RIVERS. 71 United States then you get some in the summer time, it would be the 'thing. I am told that the Milk Biver could be reservoired in Canada. Canada could. not get the direct benefit of it, but the United States could, and it seems to me you can arrive: at some e uitable distribution of those waters and some system devised w 1ereby all those waterscould be used. I knowhow the friends down in Montana felt when I was down there in 1915, and I visited Chinook and met some of the leading men there, and also at Hinsdale, where they had a little bit of irrigation scheme, and down at Everett also, and they were very much excited when we were building this Milk River

canal, because the United States was then building a canal to take some of thewater out of theSt. Mary River, and, of course,the + Alberta Railway & Irrigation Co. thought they had to protect themselves, and they built the Milk River canal, and those people were very much exclted for fear that we would take all the Milk River water, and I suppose they are anxious to have this matter settled,. and we wouldlike to havethe matter settled in some equitable way, because we are ready for it, and the country needs it. *hat, in brief, would be our situation here. As I say, we in this country, as in Montana also, will haveR lot of dry farmlng for years and years to come, because all of the land can not be brouqht under irrigation, but if they could brin all land ossible under mi ation and produce good forage crops, iay, and t rl ings of that kin$ why It would help to tide over bad years and also provide feed for the winter. Mr. CLARK.In the district of which you speak, of which you have been most intimately connected and you have irrigation, what has been the cost of your irrigation therethat,is, the initial cost of, putting water upon the land, not upkeep? Mr. ALLEN. It seems almost like a fairy tale. We could buy that land 20 ears ago for $3 an acre with water ri hts. Mr. ~URK. That was with the water ri hts5 . Mr. ALLEN.Yes; with water rights. Tie Alberta Railway & Irri- gation Co. put that canal through almost 21 ears ago, and a lot qf our people came here and agreed to establishtI me settlements inths country, one at Magrath and Raymond, and .put 500 people there to try and develop this scheme. The Alberta Railway & Irri ation CO. paid them half land and half cash, and that land was vaY ued at $3 an acre, with t.he water right toit, and it went be,g in those days; but we woke up recently to the valueof that land, inf annow we would be willing to pay $50 an acre, or more than that, perhaps$75 or $100 for land with water. Mr. CLARK.Those of yon who had foresight have done reasonably well 1 Mr. ALLEN.Yes ; if we had a little foresight. We used to have some wet years ; the hills were all covered with grass and catkle and horses could winter out all winter, but that day is past, and the grass has gone and the ranges are being depleted and we have got to do something else. Mr. POWELL.To what do you assign the decline of grass growth- climatic change? 72 ST. MARY AND MILK RJVERS. Mr. ALLEN, No; covering it with cattle. When this native grass is eaten out it takes several years to get back again, and now it is eatenup every year. When we camehere the whole country was covered with a mat of grass, and then below all dried grass that had been lying there for many years, and that protected the roots, and, of course, they had not many animals to eat it off; only a few had rancheswhen we came here 33 years ago. The morethe grass is eaten off the poorer it becomes, because weeds come up and take the place of the grass. Mr. POWELL. There is one thing I would likeenlightenment on. You are aware that the irrigation period under the treaty does not coincide with t'he practical irrigation period. It commences earlier in the season and continues later in the autumn. You am aware of that? Mr. ALLEN.Yes. Mr. POWELL.Does your remark about the waste water in the St. Mar apply to the practical irrigation season, or is it applicable only 'to wE at we might call the theoretical irrigationseason as prescribed by the treaty? Mr. ALLEN.Well, in the springtime, about Xay, the St. Mary River is very, very high. It is a regular torrent sometimes, and, of course, that is in May, and people are not irrigating very much then. Well, if they are irriga,ting there is plentyof water, and if thatcould be conserved in some way in a reservoir-- ' Mr. POWELL.Take the month of July; Senator Gardner and my- selfwere up there in the earl part of July, and there was uite a flood then in the St. dry. That is about'l914. We1? , now, takerugin% t is last summer in the monthof Jbly and monthof August and earl portion of September-was there water going to waste in the St. dary? Mr. AWN. Not very much then. Mr. POWELL.Practically all utilized? Mr. ALLEN. Nearly all. Mr. POWELL.As a practical man, what is yoursuggestion as to the remedy? There is only a certain amount of water to be divided between the two countries and neither one can get enough. What is your su gestion to help put the difficulty? Mr. ILLEN.The water ought to be reservoired some place. We havea somewhat lar ereservoir near Raymond sufficient to hold 50,000 acre feet. If t i?at water could be diverted in May and June, when high, why it would probably be stored up there for later use. Mr. .POWELL.ko that your solution is storage? Mr. ALLEN. Yes. Mr. CLARK.Did I understand you to say the reservoir was already provided '1 Mr. ALLEN.No; the site is there. Mr. CLARK. Natural conditions existing? Ms. ALLEN.Yes. And as I say, I am told-however, the en ineers would have, to auswer that-that down toward the Verdigris 6oulee, toward the Milk River at Warner, there is a very large reservoir thatthe flood waters.could be runinto. It would not serve any Canadian land, but could be taken out later and used in the United, States. ST. MARY AND MILK RJVERS. 75

Mr. ('LARK. I understand from Mr. Drake that that was feasible but it would be very expensive. Mr. I~AICE:.It would be somewhat expensive compared with some of the others, but within reason. Mr. Allen is not absolutely correct as to the Verdigris Reservoir. Some of the water stored in it could be used in Canada, but only a small part. The major portion would be more useful to the United , States. Mr. QMITIE. Yon speak of the flood waters that are wasted on the St. Mary River in Canada. Have you any available reservoir sites where you could keep and impound this wasted water? Mr. ALLEN. We have one near Raymond that holds about 79,000 acre-feet, anc(one a little farther south that holds 17,000 aore-feet-

that wonltlbe 96,000 acre-feet,irrigating approximately 49,000 to ~ 50.000 acres. Mr. SRIITII.Has there been any estimate made of the cost of storing that wasted water? Mr. ALLEN. There is an estimate of about $40 an acre,perhaps $50; but you see we can not go ahead with that until this question is settled. Mr. SMITH. How was that ascertained-under present wnditions? Mr. ALLICN. Pes. IdMr. SMITH.All you want is permanency of present conditions;.you could store that up at $50 an acre, from your experience with lrn- gation in the Southwest. It would be a very valuable investment 1 Mr. ALLEN. We think so. Of course, it mould necessitate the en- largement of the A. R. & I. canal. Under present unsettled conditions they would not want to do that, and perhaps the Government might say they would not guarantee our bonds. Mr. SmTE-I. I appreciate that. On the Milk River, you say, there are several reservoirs that could he used for the Unlted States, if built 12 Mr. ALLEN. I understand so. \Mr. SMITH.You can not estimateat whatcost per acre! Mr. AI,LEN. Wcll,Mr. Drake could perhaps tell you that. They say thc waterwould almost run in itself if they put up an earth dam. Mr. SMrm. As 1 understand,that is in a measure a torrential, stream. as we call it. Mr. ALLEN.Yes. Mr. SxTII. Impossible for the farmers to use it without having a proper place for the reservoiring of those waste waters-it is in- cwlnhent llpon the condition you express, and as I know them to exist on the other sitle of the line. it is almost wiminnl to let any water go to waste. Mr. ALLEN.It is in this dry country. Mr. Smnr. Well, it. is worse when you get to a drier country. I an1 natuldly somewhat interested in knowing at what cost both the American and Canadian people could take admntage of those flood waters. Mr. AI,I,EN.Our estimate is between $40 and $50 an acre. Mr. Smmz. Have you an estimate on the other side. at which the water mdd be stored on the Milk River, for instance? Mr. DRAKE.No, sir; we have no such estimate regarding the cost of using stored water from Milk River in the United States. That 74 ST. MARY AMD MILK WE-. figure could best be obtained from the Reclamation Service. I only want to say this, that the storageof flood waters, either from the St. Mary or Milk River, is relatively much more costly 'in Canada than in the United States, for the reason that in the TJnited States-particularly in the St. Mary Lakes--on the upper St. Mary River, and on Cham Lakes on the Milk River, the storage occurs in the strewn itself, so that it is only necessary to put a dam across the stream itself and hold back the water. That is much cheaper ordinarily than to build a very large diversion canal to take the flood waters dnring a short period of time away from a stream for storage in a reservoir not on the stream, so that our storage is relatively much more costly than yours. Mr. SMITH.Depending largely on the distance of yaw impounded waters from the place of its proposed use ? Mr. DRAKE. Quiteso. Mr. SMITH.The further it goes the more waste? Mr. ALLEN. Yes. Mr. SMITH.I can not see what sort of dam you would put across a torrential river-say like the Gila in myState-Iike? the Salt River, like the Rio Grande, if there is any such formation here in the material-I am not acquainted with the geological formation ofit-if there be any such formation there, itwould be impbssible (if they are similar) to build dams at. differentplaces that would stand the torrent of flood water. It will wash out any one we, can put in. Therefore, they had to construct enormous $10,000,000 and $15,000,000 dams to hold the watersof those streams at all. If the Milk River is anything of the same character, itis impossible by damming .the stream in its course. It would be impossible to make it a succe,ss on account of the waters thatwould come down and tear the dams out; and whether the Milk River in of that condition, Mr. Drake, or those acquainted with it, could probably tell. Mr. DRAKE.The engineers of the TJnited States Reclamation Serr- ice are quite satisfied that it is possible to construct a dam across the Milk River by means of which some 240,000 acre-feet of the flood waters of that .river can be impounded or'held back. That is in what they know as Chain Lakes Reservoir; thatis a little way south of the jnternational boundary. Mr. SMITH.Is that in the bed of the river? Mr. DRAKE. Practically in the bed of the river or in a long vnlley immediately parallel to that river. Mr. GAIWNER.I understand from you, Mr. Allen, that yonhave been here as a pioneer previous to the development of any irrigation? Mr. ALLEN. Yes. Mr. GARDNER.I would like to ask, if you please, in your judgment what percentage of this irrigated tract wasdeveloped previous to the negotiations between the two countries with respect to the agreement in ArticleVI of the treaty? Mr. ALLEN.Well. I am not posted on all figures, bnt over 100,000 ac,res. This A., R. & I. system wasbuilt over 21 years ago. They began it in 1898. Most of the development took place and construction work in 1899 and water turned in in 1900, 21 years ago, and practically all of that, nearly all of it, was under irrigation before that time, before the treaty was entered into in1909. ST. MARY AND MILK RIVERS. 76 Mr. GARDNER.And before there were any negotiations or con- trovers between the two countries? Mr. ILLEN.Yes, sir. Mr. POWELL.Is it contemplated to take the entire flow? Mr. NEWELL.The plan contemplates taking the entire flow except possiblysome from very extraordinary flood years,but it will be able to the highest economical limit to take what mightbe called the ordinary flood flo~.There might be a few extraordmary flood flows that will get by. Mr.ZPornmL. The flood flow there is about 20 feet 8 Mr. NEWELL.Yes. Mr. POWFCL.And wouldbuild it sufficiently high to arrest that additional 20 feet in Mr. NEWELL.Yes entire flow of theriver under normal flood years. Mr. $MITE. In order to construct the 'reservoirof which Mr. Drake I or Mr. Newel1 is now speaking, what would be the size of the dam? What would be the nature of the material you would have to use? Mr. NEWELL.It is not a regular dam and not comparable with a reservoir dam in Arizona, but it is built of soft earth or sand or gravel formation, so that it must be a very broad dirt dam, built of material in that vicinity, in which there is very little, if any, rock, and of such width as to insure its safety. At all times there will probabl be a small ercolation of water under foundations. Mr. &PTH. Founc! ation of sand or earth? Mr. NEWELL.Sand and gravel. Mr. SMITH.Have you any idea how deep that gravel goes before it touches the underlying rock? Mr. NEWELL.My recollection is that we have bored down several hundred feet without reaching rock. Mr. SMITH.It is bound to seep through. Mr. NICWFJJ,. Yes; but that seepage will not be lost, becauseit will return to the river. Mr. SMITH.Except perhaps it might affect the dam itself. Mr. NEWELI,.The movement through will be so slow, at perhaps a foot a day, that it, will be no imperiling. Mr. Snrrr-tx. Percolate rather than flow 9 Mr. NEWELL. Yes. Mr. CLARK.It might imperil the safety of the dam? Mr. NEWELL.No; it will be built of such width that a slow perco- lat,ion willnot carry through any material; will allow a certain amount of clearwater to escape,which inturn will go into the river and be recovered by another stream below. Mr. I'owmr,. That is like percolation that asserts itself in springs $1 considerable distance away from the head! Mr. NEWELL.Yes ; in rather what we call seams ; no distinct body of water but a general wetting of the ground along the river. Mr. SMITH.On Milk River below that proposed dam, what is the formation of banks and how deep are they? Mr. NEWELL.The whole country here is glacial formation-material brought from the north and deposited in irregular masse8 of clay with a few bowlders in them, and that glacial blanket of the connt,ry is often 700 feet or even 1,000 feet m depth, and in that ZS ST.. MARY AND MILK RIVERS. glacialbknket these st,reams have cut, theirchannels and are de- positing sand and gravel on which lve must build any structure that is erected. Mr. MARNOCR.Mr.. F. S. Leffingwell, H, progressive farmer from the Warner district, %ill give thecomnlission some informa t'Ion.

STATEMENT.OF F. S. LEFFINCIWELL, WARNER, ALBERTA. 1 '

~r.LEPFING\~EI~I,. I am here to represent the districts of >\ra'rper and Milk River. I would say it would have been a very easy matter to have had a great number of peo le here to-da only for the fact that they are verybusy with t,heirt K reshing, but, f can say that they are absolutelyunanimons intheir wish forwhat irrigation it is possible for them to get in the Warner and Milk River districts. We have always understood that it might be possible, t'hrough the cleeision of this conmission, to give 11s about 20,000 acres of irrigation, and that would be a portion or tract of land of about 80,000 acres,pract>ically one-qnart,er of theland under irrigation. This mould be a great help to 11s for the reason, ns has already been mentionedhere, that while we aremaking quite :L success of ow dry farming, at the sametinw thee dry years,qnite often followed by haid winters, the feed for our stock is very scarce in the wintertime. We have been compelled to pay as high as $50 a ton for haythat was shippedfrom the Province of Quebec inorder t6 winter our stock. That is certainly a great hardship, and it, would be overcome if we could have a small percentage of onr land under irrigation, and itwould also be a great help to t,he town sites of both Warner and Milk River, as they would bot,h come under t,he 20,000 acres, and about 15 miles of the dit.chnecessary has already been completed, and with some, repair work, such as some flumes and the dam in the Milk River, why we couldget this irrigat,ion verycheap- I believe one of the cheapest pr0ject.s in southern Alberta. Mr. CLARK.That, ditch WRS constructed some yt::lrs ago? Mr. LEFFINGW'ELI,.Yes. I have a 1,500-acre fwm partly on this side of the ditch, and I, RS well as my neighbors, &re xnxions to get what irrigation me can from it, tlnd I nlay say if this 15 miles was put in workingorder and the, dam was completed as it.was when first, constructedand water fro111 the Mill; River \vas turned into it, it, would go directlyinto the reservoirsite on the Verdigris Coulee without any further expense wlmt,ever; if water was tllrned loose at the end of the ditch it would followi the natural waterway in the Verdigris Chulee. Mr. CLARK.W7hy was that, built and never used? - Mr. LEFI"tNmm,i,. It was built, at a time when there were no set- t,lers in the country, and the sett,lers that, came in there came from the UnitedStates, from Minnesot'a andDakota, Iowa and MichigFn, where we have no irrigat,ion and we did not, know t,hat, irrigntml would ever be necessary: but after several yearsof experience in this country we are very much in favorof a portion of the land being put nnder irrigation, andwewe very sure thatit would be very practlca1 and very desirable in making permanent homes and better conditions under which we would live. Mr. SMITH.Do I understand it is a natural reservoir? ST. MARY AND 'MILK RIVERS. 77 Mr. IJ~~~~~~~~~~,~,.Yes ; it would require a .dirt .darn and,the 'local tion where thedum would be-of course, I am not an engineer,.I li&~+d~ not investigated from that standpoint-but my 'observations lead 'me to believe that it is a very heavy clay soil at this dam site and the banks of the coulee are very hi h, and the dam would not be a ver?' long dirt dam. 14, is a natural f. am site. Mr. SMITH.What flood waters, would that reservoir take in P. ' ' Mr. LEFFINGWELL.It would take in waters from the Milk River and from the land tributary to this Verdigris Coulee, which parallels. ,,, Milk R,iver at a distance from'it about 10 to 15 mires. ' Mr. SMITH.In order to divert the water from the Milk River to get it into that, it would then be necessary to dam Bhe Milk River? Mr. LEFFINGWELL.To repair the dam thatwas put in there atone time and repair the ditch would be all the work that would be necessary. Mr. SMITH.What effect would that have in the lower flow of thq river at low season of the year? Mr. LEFFINGWELL.That would depend on what time of the year the water was taken from the Milk River. If taken very early in the season during flood-water times, I do not think it would take any of the water thatis being used, but if taken later, taken laterin theseason during the irrigation season, I don't know. I thinkit could be so constructed as to let the water through except when it is desirable to hold it back. Sir WILLIAM HEARST.Your idea was simply to divert the flood waters and allow the ordinary flow in low-water time to pass down the river? Mr. LEFFIXGWELL.Yes, sir. That wouldenable us to hold and impound the flood water; but this flood water could not be used on the tractof land I refer to, that lower blue tractof land [indicating]. It roulclbe used in both the United States and Canada. Could be used farther east in Canada or be taken back into the Milk River. This Verdigris Coulee empties into the Milk River. Mr. I~RAKE.I am sure Mr. Leffingwell does not want to be understood as saying that flood waters only taken out of he Milk River would be useful in irrigating the tract of land aroun5 Warner, that 20,000 acres? Mr. LRFFINC.TJ-I";LL.No; the flood water thstwould be taken and put into this Verdigris Reservoir could not be used upon that tract of land that I have reference to, but, that would have to come directly from the Nilk River. Mr. SRZITH.My at,tention was not directed so much to.the land to be irrigated a8 it was to the water to be diverted. The only problem that occurred to me was that a dam across there that would fill a reservoir on this side would be difficult tomconstruct, unless you had a gate that, you could open when the flood waters had passed, t,o let colnplete and undisturbed fl0.w of the Milk River go along. Mr. LEFFINGWELL. The da,m was completed at one time, and I do not think at that, time, that, it took the water outof the Milk River in low-water time at all. I do not t,hink it took any water unless it was the wish of the one that was in control of the dam. But the 20,000 acres would be o'f great benefit to the people living on that tract of land, and they are absolutely unanimously ih favor of getting'what 78 ST. MARY AND MILK RIVERS. irrigation they can have and, of course, very anxious to get it as soon as they caa Mr. POWELL.You are aware, of course, that the function of the commission is simply tosee to thedelivery of one-half of the totality of the two streams to Canada and has nothing to do in the way of following that up and making distribution. Mr. LEFFINOWELL., Yes, sir; but we feel that we kould get a perfectly sguqre deal, and et what we are entitled to, which is n& a very large percentageo PCanada's share. Mr. POWELL.You will trust to your fellow Canadian citizens to do justice to you 1 , Mr. LEFFIN~WELL.Yes, sir. Mr. MARNOCH.Mr. Lawrence Peterson, a memberof the legislative assembly and farmerof considerable experience in thedistrict around Taber, a little to the ewtof Lethbridge. STATEMENT OF MR. LAWREIUCE PETERSON, TABER, ALBERTA. Mr. PETERSON.Mr. Chairmanand members of thecommission, when I cam,e to Lethbridge it was more for the purpose of hearin the deliberations here this morning than to take any part in them. f heard one of the commissioners state that the attendance was rather small here. There is not a hall 1arge.enough in Lethbridge to hold those who a.re interested in the deliberations of this commission, and they have followed with considerable interest the sittings and possibilities of solution of this question. In fact, the conventions that we have held in the last number of years have been very enthusiastic until thay bumped up against the uestion of thedlvision of.the waters between the two countries an8 then we have had to halt, and I am sure that we are all delighted that the thing seems to have takennew life and possibility of some solutionto the uestion. I take it that the commission will propose a. solution to t41 e question that will be satisfactory to the two countries. I happen to be fortunate enough to have water on my own lands, having received water last year from a reservolr that waters some 17,000 acres, and the reservoir is capable of watering, I thmk-possibly Mr. Drake will correct me-but something like another 100,000 acres of land from the Chin Coulee Reservoir. It is'a splendid place for reservoiring water and couldbe, used to great advantage. Mr. POWELL,What is the origin of that water? Mr. PETERSON.It comes from the St. Mary and through the Al- berta Railway & Irrigation system, and is a kind of tail end on their system, and is stored in that reservoir and taken out to water this 17,000 acres of land. Many of the people down there thought when our system was put in they would also have this extended to cover this other 100,000 acres, but it is held up until decision is rendered. . There was a question that came upin connection with the statement made by Mr. Fairfield in connection with oats raised upondry land- I don't know when the comparison was taken-but 1915 was a very extraordinary year, a year in whichI do not think irrigation would have benefited this ;part of the country. It seems to me we will not havemany yews like 1915. That is one reasonwhy the yield from . unirrigated land was greater than irrigated land. I have been here myself something near 20 years, and that was an esceptional year, ST. MARY bND MILcy ,NVEfPra. ($9 yehave had qpor two other years that mihavehad, ,dry.,fp4wilng with conaderabls profit; but, as was stated, thew d~7.,~!aarq:':9lqme uite re lady, and a,re very severe in spells, rpakipg it iwp.p&Je ?or the Pmer to produce an average-that would makeit h;o.thgli..you can live here with any degree of certainty? and unless he caw %,.a portion of his farm under irrigation, whyit Seems like it ie wal:ci .mg a great hardship on the farmer totry and pla4spr a stay of it. Another thing incoqnection with dry farming bere. Wbilk $&I+- .tific methods and cultivationof the soil,of course, havebelpd a greet deal, here of late Seasons we have run into a condition witki winds that have prevented tilling our soil like we woulcl like to do it from a scientific standpoint for the purpose &dry fwming, when you .bring irrigation in connection wlth that,we overcome thls wind. proposition, that ,it does not act on the soil like it does with a, farm tbt has been farmed successfully underthe dry method., I do not think I need say anything further; but people throw$- outthe country here in the southetn part by..the thousapdf4 ',are anxioud to have this question settled, so that w0 w~llknow what steps to go in the furthering of our irrigation extfnsiop, There ye.many thouwnds. of ames here that are simply waltlng for the de~lslazlof this commission, and there is no Government or company that is willing to unde,rtake extensive worksin connection with it until th6y know where the are at in the division of those watsm.. Mr. C~ART.Ifhat amount of.water do you.estimate is necsksarp & your 'land for pro er irrigation? Mr. PETERSON.ger awe? ,. . Mr, Cua~,, Yw, ,,. J Mf. PE~o~.The Domipion G9vwqnent 'have &hided ,to .dl4 lt acre-feet: That is 18 3whm. Tt: wqs 2 wrp-feet, but I thmk.th9y reduced it one-half foat. . . , ' 1.1. Mr. Cwh. Jn your own judgpxatj without reftmnce to ths &t- bent o~ laws of, the Doqtinion, wh4t do YQU estimate is ,the wo& bqefici 1 .amount? Mr. 8E~RBON. Th& wo, ld,,:varXsomewhat, 'You teka our irrjgi- tion system here this year3 take Itawe woddw wns~,rjepb~yQV+F that amount. It wap so dry, ,andbeing the first yaw of iwgation it would ossibly take over 14. , :: Mr. &LARK. I am speaking of your 0wn farm. ' Mr. PETE~SON.I think likely .in the laqd I .irrigated kight use over that amosnb,,but I ~rn,in hQpes another year 1 will RQt take so much'.. bcapse>it is saturated to a good depth from the first irri@- t ion. Mr: G+I~$EE". Mr. Drake, I qnderstoodMr. Allen' to say that previous to the negotiations for the treaty tbers was about 100,000 acres on the St. Mary stretch under irrigation. I would like to ask ou, in .your 'udgment, wh& perqtaga Qf .the. n&wai @W .of Milk Biver would 21,ave been required during the irrigation periodto irrigate that lapd-the St. Mary I am talking about. Mr. DRAKE.If 100,000 acres of land were al1,irrig;ated throughout one season,it would require approximately200,000 acre-feet of water, and my impression is, although I would not make this as a positive statement, that during the irrigation season the average flow of St. Mary River would be approximately 600,000 wre-feet, SO thrct the 2~5000"23"--6 80 ST. ,MARY XND MILK -RWERB. complete irrigation of this 100,000.acres would kqB' ken approgi- mately one-third of the total average flow of th6 ' ream. Those statements, aa you 'uite understand, are mere approximations.P Mr. GARDNER.W t at would'that represent in second-feet, approximately ? MT. DRAKE. There is not any use in attempting to convert it back intosecond-feet. We can only deal with the total product of the river in terms of quantity., We do that by reference to this quantity

as 'so many acre-feet. Mr. POWELL.Mr. Drake can do it in his head ain moment. ,Mr. DRAKE.Sa it would flow between 400 and 500 second-feet. Mr. Powmr,. 4he commission has made tentative orders for a series of years annually, dividing the waters, between the 'United States And Canada or between Montana and southern Alberta-how', inpractice, have those orders worked? I am notlm$ing to the future. Mr. PETER~ON. 'You mean those orders that have been in operation during the last number of years? Mr. POWELLYes. Mr. PEFERSON. There has been no attempt during flood waters to makeany division, because we allhave had plenty. I livejust a short distance from the St. Mary R,iver and although the Old Man River empties into it, I have seen the s't. Mary when it was preti- cally dry durin . the dry portion. of the year-thatis, 3uly and Au st, althouga during the same years that we mi ht have a wet speY 1 that will swell those streams in those dry montf s. Mr. Powem. Mypoint is this: Do youknow or do you not bhw how the people have been sati&ed with the operation of our tentative orders for the last four or five years? ' Mr. PETERSON. I do not think the people general1 I have any way of being considered in th6 matter bdause the C.,P. . have had tho operation in the southern part here of the only canal5 system thqt we had, and when we could not get water, why we just simply re- fei+ed the matter to them, and so far as any other scheme, why they bve been all 'in the air. Mr. POWELL.The man to ask is the administrator of that depart- ment of the C. P. R. Mr. PETERSON.Yes. Mr. DRAKE. Will you permitme to make a correction for the ur- poses of the record? I said a moment ago it would have taken aE out 400 second-feet to irrigate that. I want to make the correction that it would take about 800 second-feet. Mr. MARNOCH. Mr. ChrisJensen, of thecity of Magrsth, who farms in the vicinityof that progressive city. STA!I"ENT OF CHRIS JENSEN, MAORATR, ALBERTA. 'Mr. JENSEN.Mr. Ohairman and gentlemen of the commission, I am delighted in havin the honor to represent the city that is named after your honorable cairman, andI suppose to him I should charge my comihg to Canada.a The people of Magrath ire very much interested in thisdiscussion that is going on here to-day. I myself have been in the country somewhere near 18 years. After living here for two years I mn ST. MARY AND MILK RIVERS. 81 saw the necessity of havin water on the land, with the result that we acquired a small piece o land that hadm-ater rights aloqg with it. I am unable to say anythingf in addition to what lias been said, only this: That as far as the farmers are concerned in our district we know that in order to live in Canada, and live right in Canada., that we musthave water on the land. To illustrate, last summer our crop came up very nicely, and one of my neighbors had a very nice stand of wheat, .and he WRS looking forward to maping a harvest when harvest time came. Suddenly these west winds came up and we had a nudber of dry days and weeks, and I Pemember sitting in his house when he came into his home and he said to his wife, "Well, mother, I ,have just come in to tell you that the shoes and stockings of our dear little ones have vanished for the winter, that we have no way now of providing food and clothing fos our chil- dran,'! simpLy because- Mr. CLARK.That was an' unusual year? Mr. JENSEN.Well, it has not been unusual for the last four years. I think that is about the condition that prevails woundour partisu- lar pmt of the district. As has been pointed out here,our provincial governanent h.as adopted the polic of pwanteeing the, b&of any irrigation district that canshow t t they have an amplewater supply. Wehave organized a. di-iet Ldown where .I am with the hope of gettilz wlteer 011: our Issad. Dry farmers down thers have done very litt fe. In '1915, 1916, and 1917 they made substanti,al gains financidly. The last four years we have all been slippinp down and down the ladder until the banks are beginning'to question whether we are right in the upper story or not. The bankin system is carried on a little different here than in the United %taw, and they have thheir head offices in Mbntreal, .and they' can tellnot' what is going on here, and they begin to wonder .what is the matter. When they come out herewe have a chrlnce to explain these matters to them and point outto them that it is really no faultof the'farmers, b!ttthe elements have gone against them, and they must have some suppo+, and the. only support we can see thnt is oing to stabilize things IS this water. The Govergmmt has ~Jdopte.%

0 82 ST. MARY AND MILK IUVERS. to raise families and live in a eountry where they can not go rixht straight along from year to year. Mr. CLARK.Have your climatic conditions during those years affected your irrigated land as to the crops produced4 Mr. JENBEN.Yes, sir, Mr. CLARK.Did you produce the&me crops dukng those years on your irrigated land as you produced on the same land in other years? Mr. JEN~N.During the very dry season when we had no rain to speak of landproperly irrigated will produce just as much per acre as though we had plenty of rain. Mr. CLARK.What was the actual practical result during the dry years ? Mr. JENEIEN. During the dry years peoplemho have irrigated their land properly probably received 30 to 40 bushels to the acre. Mr. CUARK.And is that what they received in normal years? Mr. JENSEN.In rainfall years there%35 to 40 bushels. Mr. CLARK.The point I want to make is simply this: You have had four lean years where. you have had comparative failure upon your dry land. Now, during those same four years whathes been the same practicalresult on your'irrigated ,land'? Has it madeany difference on the yield of this land? Mr. JFLN~~EN.No; when we had sufficient water, but when irrigated properly the crop has been the same each year. By irrigating our land hem in Canada in the fall of the year we get very substantial crops next year. The last four years has been the same; there has been no difference that I can tell. Mr. SMITH.There is orie questiomI would like to ask you: When you $peak ~f waste .waters, ove~flowof .waters, whatever decision that &is coanimiskion should finally arrive at, will noh there still .be.that wasbe of water if it is not impounded? .' Mr. JWXSEX. If it ie not impounded?

Mr. SBHTH..Yes. I . Mr. JIONSEN. That water will have to be impounded to take care of it. Mr. SWITH.Then my su+qpstion waa, if it was not too much expense for the farmers to bear .that under the pmnt dhtributim" temporary, of coursewhether it would not be economical to impound that wateranyhow, knowing that therewYould.be always flood waters in theSt. Mary and alwaysflood waters in the Milk? Mr. JENBEW.I think it would be a good plan to impound. Mr. SMITH.Why couldnot it be imljoundedanyway on either side, notwithstanding thedecision of this tribunal k' Mr. Jmselrr. Hereis the proposition as we look at it onthis side1 may be wrong-but suppose we as farmers would go to work and impound or make ar*angements to impound a certain amount of water on this side of the line, and meantime this decision is .in doubt, we do not know what would happen when the decision. w,as finally rendered. Suppose it qight be adverse to Canada, then all the money we expended would amount to nothing. That would not be the worst part of it; our people would be encouraged to come-in and locate on and surrounding the reservoir sites, and if that decision was adverse they would probably haveto move out.- Mr. SMITH.I appreciate the argument, but I am looking-at present conditions. Notwithstandingthis. decision or any declsion WM ST. MARY AND MILK RIVERS. 83 can possibly make, we can never stop the waste of flooi waters in thosetwo riverswithout impounding it somewhere. Why can not both sides take advantage of it b building a reservoir? Mr. JENSEN.I think that wou Pd be a good idea. Mr. MARNOGET.Mr. Risinger, of the town of New Dayton. STATEMENT OF MR. BO1 W. RISINQEB, NEW DAYTON, AXBERTA. Mr. RISINOER.Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I take exception to Mr. Marnoch'sremarks as to the town. I think it would be very hard to find thatthrough a high-powered glass. I amnot from the town; I am from the country. However, there is not very much in the matter of detail that I feel I can bring before ou, but there are a few things havingto deal with thec&68 in genera9 that I would like to mentionvery briefly. One is that we havenot come here making a great demonstratlon to-day. I think the very evidence of the fact that there 'are not hundreds of people here, that there are a few representatives should bear weight with you in that it shows we me organized adhave representatives appointed to take care of our problem.We are organizedand prepared ,to do business, a.nd we have been for some time. There has been quite a little mis- sionary work going on in the past few years previous to this organi- zation, and of all men Mr. Marnoch, who has addressed you and in whom we repose the greatest confidence and who has charge of our negotiations, has done more than any other. He has devoted years without pay to the accomplishment practically of this one purpose. As president of the board of trade he took care of the interests of Lethbridge generally, buk those interests were determined to be so intimatelybound up with the progress of aiculture in this section, and the progress of agriculture finally f?eca.me so that it was dependent upon irrigation development, and because of these series of events the greater part of Mr. Marnoch's' attention was devoted to the furtherment of irrigation in this district; and for that reason I hope that you will t'ake pains to give all the weight that you can to the things that he has brou htbefore you, as he represents, as one voice, practically the whole o southern Alberta. We do not want to appear toP be here in thesense of asking for the development of isolatedterritories. Wethink that this irrigation ' will benefit not only the people who have water applied to their land but that it will be of great general benefit over all of southern Al- berta. As oneinstance, western. Canada now, and Canada as tt whole wherever they produce cattle, are having difficulty in finding a market for these cattle that they pmdime, being cut ob from stock marketin the United States. Our lightercattle, our half-finished cattle as they come off the ranches of the West, findno market. They are not beef such as may be shipped profitably to England, and at presentwe have no facilities to fatten all those cattle into prime beef so that they will stand 'the 'ourney to England and be slaugh- tered there on arrival as beef. khe developmint of this irrigation here in the south and the growth of alfalh and coarse grains will provide a place for the finishing of thousands of cattle from all parts of Alberta; especially the south half, and from Saskatchewan. That is what we are looking forward to. .The practical farmers here are looking forward to the development of these irrigated areas as im- 84 . ST. NARY AND MILK I1IVER.B. mensefeeding grounds. Thatwill not only benefitourselves but will benefit the live-stock industry over a la?ger area by far than that to which the water is applied. And, not only that, just providing of feed in the south, but it will make chea er feed and feed that is available to the dry farmers that will neverie affected directly by the use of water on their land, who are unable to get it, in that they cm ,get feed and be able to carry on over ththese .dry seasons.at not as exorbitant an expense as they have been subject to heretofore. I think that you will 'find that, the spirithere in theWest is one of getting together rather than that of a contentious nature. We have nocontentions with the citizens of Montana.We have been 80 placed here that we can appreciate exactly their difficulties and sym- pathizewith them. We want settlement and we believe that ,they want settlement,,and we believe that whatever settlement is arrived at will be fair; but we want to be so placed that we can go ahead with these developments on both sides of the line and be able to remain in the country and to view our future with some measure o€ assurance rather than one of extreme doubt. M'e have investments here, not only of a financial nature, but our families are growing up here and we want to be able to keep them here ; we do not want our homes disrupted ,because of those. periodic spells of depression due to lack of returns from'our efforts and the cons uent discourage- ment that prevails, as already has been mentioned."tve want to have an assured future, and we feel that the thingnow to do is to develop the use of this water to the fullest extent, and the thin that has already been brought up just recently-as to what mig t be done with those storage waters. Wethink that our main object a now should be that that take place, and that the waters be divided in some equitable manner, stored waters as well as the run of the river, between the two countries for their mutual use. We want to see the waters used. We are not here for any.other purpose than tosee this water used and used on both sidesof the line, but we are anxious that it be done ,atthe earliest possible moment. Mr. MARNOCH. Mr. Chairman, I had hoped that there might be some representative of the pioneers from the districts farther out: but, as you know, the arrangements of the commission coming here were made very hurriedly ; we thought perhaps you might not get here until Monday, and consequently some of the farmers who live fartherout have been preventedfrom being present, but the case ' has been very well presented by. those gentlemen who have spoken. I wouldlike to suggest, Mr. Chairman, that you should ask if anyone else wishes to present anything, because we do not want to blanket anyone who has anything useful tosay. Mr. MAQRATH.We have exhausted the list that waS placed before me. Is anyone else present who would like to say something? We would be very pleased to hear you. Mr. MARNOCH.Before you close the proceedings I should like to say that the citizens of the town would be very glad indeed to provide you with automobile transportation to take you around to see anything in the district, particularly in connection with irrigation, that you are interested in. We are gratified, I am sure, that the commission has been here to-day, and we hope very sincerely that some solution'will be worked ST. MARY AND MILK RIVER& 85 out whereby ,t& ,matter can at least be brought to a point and we ceed to further irrigation development. . I would like to ask Mr. Drake a question Mr. Marnoch was explaining to us the irri map that produced,.he he .referred particuyble.rrly in the west there [indicating], which I under-

aken .out to the

!If Mr. Meek will be good enough todo that,

Mr. CLARK.Excuss & for interrupting just there, but the lower map represents, as I un4erstand it, the same land thatis represented on the upper map!

area in the vicinit Mr.MAGRATH.

can be carried over to the B €36: ST. MARY 'Ais0 MILK WkRS,

' Sir WILLIAMHEAR&. That darn that you speak di,would that involve the rsirsing of Waterton L&kein the, Unxted $tat% as well Ibs ' in Canaida! Mr. MEEK.That would involve backing water up W the United Theh the wtlbr from the Wabrton would ,bb'irvgrn~ntedby the Belly River and carried across the Blood Indiari Ream and the St, Mary River and into reservoirdes out;W the prairies. Sir WmuM HEARBT.IB that WateYton Lake what .pU would call a mountain lake? Mr. Mmx. That. is right in the mountains. Mr. MAURATH.Is there any outlet on the American side? Mr. WBK.Therb is no butlet on the Americansidwthat I know of. Mr. PO-L. It jqins the St, Mary below ,the bordey? Mr. Ishum. The Wlltsrton River runs into theBelly RiveP and into theOld Man River. Mr. CLARK.Does the Waterhon River have its ri& in this lake that you speak of? Mr. MEBS. The Waterton rises in the United St.a'oes. Mr. CLARK.But what I fant to rindersttmd is whether or not the lake is BhO mum of the water! , /,I Mr. Matdic., The lake is; yes. Bi+t WILLIAMHBAIMT. A part of the lake is north ahd a part south of the inteniatisnal boundary, the lake emptying north? Mr. Mmm. Yes; sir, Mr. POWELL.I understood you to say that you would divert the water froa this remrvoir into the Belly River. You meant the St. Mary, did punot? i I Nr. Mnnmr. No ; the Waterton River. Mr. POWELL.It runs into the Belly River now 8 Mr. WK.Yes; but we can not use it. Mr. POWELL.Oh, I see. '. < Mr. MEEK. It has to be diverted higher up river to get it at a sufficient. elevation to cover the lands. The total irri able area that we: have considered feasible at the present time to %evelop from these three rivets' is, approximately, 580,000 acres. Thereare two small schemes surveyed alread from the Waterton andChe Belly Rivers, and on the Belly Rivert % ere is the United irrigatioa district, which wvers 28,000 acres, and from the Waterton district 60,000 acres. Mr; GARDNER.What do the colored porti8ns of that map represent 1 Mr. MEEK.The green poPtions are the lands which are already irrigated from the Alberta railway and i.Hig%tionsystem and the red areas are the proposed extensions of $Ifat system to these three rivers. Mr. POWEU.What does the white intmior portion mean ;, that whioh is not irrigable? Mr. MEEK.,The white. portion is at too high an elevation or for some reason'other isirrigable. not " ' ' ' ti' ,Mr. Cum, What proportion of that water thatwould be required there wddbe obtt-&ed from the Belly ;River? ,' Mr. MEEK. I think the totalwat& that, we estimated could be used from the Belly River was200,000 aereyfeht, ,gpptoximately.. ST. MARY AND MILK BITERS. ~87 Mr. CL~RIZ.And how much from the Waterton River? Mr. MEEK. I am speaking entirely from memory, and I can not sa that that is exactly true. %r. CLARK.What I wanted to get at really was how much additional water would. you require from the St. Mary River to cover ywr pro osed lan. Do youget my meaning? Mr. 111 these schemes depend on storing flood water, and also upondm. how much of that flood water it is econamical to store to irri ate these lands. 8r. CLARK.You have no means of estimating, then, how much of the flood maters of the St. Mary would be required? Mr. MEEK.We know the total amount that would be required. Mr. CLARK. Have you ascertained how much you can store of the Belly River water? Mr. MEEK. Yes. Vl7e estimate that we could store 37,000 acre-feet of the Belly River. Mr. CLARK. Andhow much on the Waterion River? Mr. MEEK. On the Waterton River the provision of a dam at the end of the lake 40 feet in height would store 40,000 acre-feet, but there is an international question there. Mr. CLARK.I am not speaking of the international question ; I am trying to find out how much storage you would require on the St. Mar River to accomplish your desired purpose. How much storage wou9 d be required there? Mr. MEEK. We have no storage directly on the St. Mary River, but there are- Mr.CLARK. Just eliminate the international boundary entirely from your mind, if you can. What I am trying to get at is how much St. Mary stora e water would be required to supplement your storage water of the gelly and the other rivers tocover your project as contemplated. Mr. MEEK.We have not thatinformation. We consider all the three rivers, together with storage sites on the river and the storage site out on the prairies. We contemplate using the Raymond Reser- voir up to 19,000-acre feet, the Milk River Reservoir up to 79,000 acre-feet, the Chin Reservoir up to 100,000 acre-feet, and the Verdi- gris up to 140,000 acre-feet. Mr. CLARK. Have you not any way of estimating howmuch of that storage you can provide on each of the rivers? Mr. MEEK.We can use allthese storage reservoirs outon the prairies from any one of those rivers,and when the water is out in the St. Mar -- Mr. CLARK.~OW much storage will the flood water of the Belly River provide? Mr. MEEK.Approximately 200,000 acre-feet. That isthe total flow. Mr. CLARK.I guess I can not make myself plain. Go right along. Mr. MAGRSTH. Were not those storage reservoirs given at the St. Paul hearing? Mr. DRAKE.Yes, sir; theywere given, but, like the figures of irrigable areas, they have been subjected to change as we got further information. Mr. CLARK.Is there any way of ascertaining at this hearing how much water can be impounded from the flood waters of each of those 88 ST. MARY AND MILK RIVERS. rivers, and how much is required to irrigate this proposed area, Mr. Drake ? Mr. DRAKE.That is wholly a question of cost. Therivers pro- ducecertain volumes of water. If youare prepared to spend enough money you can usually manage in some way to hold those rivers. Mr. CLARK.Here is my idea : You have laid out a scheme providing for so qany thousand, acres of land. You must also have figured out the sources of supply. Mr. DRAHE.We have. Mr. CLARK.That is what I am trying to find out, how much of that supply would come from the waters of the St. Mary River, how much from the Belly River, and how much from the waters of the others. In otherwords, that question enters into the question of united construction of reservoirs by the two countries. Mr. DRAKE. Yes, sir, it does; and, as you of course quite clearly realize, in making our calculations we have been largely influenced by the matter of cost. What will it cast us to conserve for utlhma- tion a certain proportion of the waters of these streams? Mr. Meek c.an tell you the capacity of the canal taking water from the Water- tonRiver across to the Belly River. That will represent in part our estimate of the available use of flood water. But there are two faotors there. First of all, there is the question as to whether or not and under what conditionswe might be able touse Waterton Lake as a storage reservoir. That, as ou are probably aware, is not only a question to be decided by the 6overnment of the Dominion but it 1s also an international question, because a part of Waterton Lake lies on the United States sideof the line withln the limitsof one of your national parks. That portion of the lake which is within Canada is within the limits of one of our national parks. It is a uestion as to whether or not, or subject to what conditions, we mig4, t be permitted to store 140,000 or 150,000 acre-feet of water there. IMr. CLARK.And yet ou have taken all of those matters into speo- ulation in figuringon ti e amount of land? Mr. DRAKE.Yes, sir. Mr. CLARK.I want to know where your speculations have led YOU. Mr. DRAKE. We have assumed that that there is a possibility of storing 140,000 or 150,000 acre-feet of water in Waterton Lake. We have assumed that that, storage might be utilized in part twice over and that we might be able on the whole to hold back there abqut 200,000 acre-feet of water.Then, we haveplanned a canalwhlch will take that stored water, together with the natural flow .of the stream, across to Belly River. Mr. Meek can give you the exact figures now. We take that across tothe Belly River. There we have no facilitiesfor stora e. We merely have a dam which will permit us to divert not only t% e flood water of Belly River but the flood water of the Waterton River diverted ,across there. We pick that up and take it aoross to the St. MaryRiver. The amount of waterwhich we contemplategetting fpom the Belly River will be re resented by the difference in the si*.of the canal coming from Mkaterton over to Belly and the size ' of the canal that w~ll run fromBelly over to St. !Mary. That will represent the volume of water which we hope to et out of the Belly River itself. Then, that water taken over to ta e St. Mary River ST. MARY AND MILK RIVERS. 89 can be dealt with in either of two ways. I have not got all these details in my mind,because there are matters that havebeen worked out b our engineers throu hout the season and the studies are not comp9 ete, but, roughly speai? ing, the waters can thenbe dealt with in two ways-either by an impounding dam in St. Mary River itself, a considerable distance north of the boundary, 01: by merely a dam whkh will permit of these waters brought over from the west bein turned into that river and then taken out at a high elevation ‘an % carried eastward to reservoirs which have been referred to. Now, the amount of our storage is represented by the capacity of those reservoirs. That after allis the true answer to your questionas to how much of the waters of these several streams we can use. Just from memory,the Raymond Reservoir will hold 18,000 or 19,000 acre-feet, the Milk River Reservoir will ,hold 79,000 acre-feet, the Verdigris Reservoir will hold 140,000 acre-feet, and the Chin Reser- voir can be made to hold about 102,000 acre-feet. The total, whatever that maybe, will represent the total volumeof flood water which we hope to be able to use. Mr. CLARK.I think we are both trying to get the same thing, but we do not understand each other. Supposing by international a ee- ment or consent a dam were built there to the full capacity to wyich you hope you might build it at this international lake, Watarton Lake, and you utilized that water; then you supplement that by water from the Belly River and you use that, and then the United States should build a dam at the lower part of St. Mary Lake. How much storage water inSt. Mary Lake would you have to add to your Waterton and Belly water to irrigate this land? Mr. DRAKN.I really do not know that it is possible to answer the question. There is a physical limitation to the amount of water that could be stored. I would not like to undertake to answer that in a specific way, because, as has been ointed out to you a good many times, thereis infinitely more land tYl at requires irngation- Mr. CLARK.I am speaking of these propcts. Mr. DRAKE.I imagine, roughly-and I say this subject to correction laterthat if it were possible to hold 250,000 acre-feet of water, or to build a dam creating a reservoirof 250,000 acre-feet capacity in St. Mary Lakes, to be used jointly for the advantage of the United Stat,es and Canada, that that might solve the problem. Mr.CLARK. How much of that 250,000 acre-feetwould Canada need? That is what I am trying to get at. Mr. DRAKE. When I said used jointly ” I meant to say that we share equally in the storage. Mr. Pow~r,~,.As I understand it your scheme contemplatesthe uti1izat)ionof storage and natural flow of the Belly. It contemplates the utilization of storage and naturalflow of this water? Mr.DRAKE. Yes. Mr. POWELL.How much would you have to draw from the St. Mary system supplemental to that to work out your scheme? That is it, is it not? Mr. CLARK.From the St. Mary storage water? Mr. POWELL.Yes; from the St, Mary storage water. Mr. DRAKE.I think our calculations show that we would have to have some 500,000 acre-feet of water altogether from the St. Mary River. 90 ST. MARS AND MILK RIVERS. Mr. PowEtr,. To wopk out your scheme9 Mr. DRAKE.Y&. How we can get, it is a problem. Mr. CLARK.You have to first, ascertain what your needs we then try and have somebody workit out for you. Sir WILLIAMHEARST. Mr. Drake, HS I understand Mr. Meek, and I think aIso yourself, you are simply at the present time workingout your scheme. The scheme on t'he map is not a findity, as I under- st,md it ? Mr. DRAKE.By no means. I attemptod to %y when I first referred to thgt map t,hat it is our working map. At any time within the last five ears we have had a map similar to that showing to tho best of our nowledge at that time the storage facilities, the, csnul capacities thatx would be mpired, and the areas of land tjhtlt might be irrigated. All these data are ahangeri from time to time M our surveys are completed or ns we gvt more inforn~atim, and all of these maps are indefinite, because of certain factors which we can not, cantrol, one of them being the amount of water or the propoltion of the flowof the St. Mary and Milk Rivers that .will finally he allotted to Canada under the waterways treat , another of the nn- certain factors being the extrnt to which the 6nited States may be willing to construct reserv0i.m on the upper St. Mary River; and still another being doubt as to whether and under what conditions we may be able to me storage on the Waterton River. All of thmu are uncertainties. Sir WIBLIAMHBARST. I think we all underwtand that thereis a very nluch larger area of land that could be irrigated for profit if we can get water from any source, and you are working within that to see how much it is? Mr. DRAKE..Pes, sir; that is true. That map, if any of the members of the commission care to examine it in detail, contain% qnite. . anamount of informationthat you may find interesting. Mr. (~ARDNER. Within the limits of what parks did you speak of '? Mr. DRAKE.The GlacierNational Park on the tTnited States side and the Waterton National Park on the Canadian side. Mr. MAGRATH.D'ow anyone else wish to be heard now ?1 On behalf of thecommission I wantto thank Mr. Marnoch and the other gentlemen who appeared here and addressed 11s. It is hardly necessary for me to point out that we, are conscious of your difficulties. We are conscious of your keen desire for an immediate settlement. As I said in opening, we have been giying the matter a great deal of thought, and I think I am justified in saying on behalf of the commission that we intend to either settle it very.shortly or let the (lovernments undertake to say what they intended that articleof the treaty to mean. There is nothing further to be said,, gentlemen, than that the sincere hope of the members of the commission is that we will reach a settlement. We do not want to let go. We appreciqto that an international tribunal that can not settle international difficulties will not b'e of much use to these two countries, and that has heen the impelling force that has kept this problem largely before11s. We thank you, gentlemen, for your attendance. .. (Thereupon, at 12.30 o'clock p. m., the commission adjourned.) . INDEX.

.4lberta, history of irrigation development, 63-65, 66-67. Allen, H. S., statement, 70-76. Anderson. Herbert C.. 17. Appearances, Chinook hearing, 1; Lethbridge hearing, 56, Article VI, 5, 13, 19, 39, 46-48, 92-53, 57-58. Chinook hearing, 1-56. Control of flood waters, 30. Cowan, Senator William T.,statement, 20-23. Digtan, Thonias, statement, 13-16. IMxoil, Hon. Joseph M., statement, 2-8, 44-45. ' Drake, E. F., statement, 51,87-90. *:. Dryfarming, 69, 71, 76, 79. ,.,,. Equalapportionment, 5. Everett, Thomtls A, statement, 8-13, 54-55. "" Ij'airfield, W. H., statement, 66-69. :' Perguson,Blaine, statement, 25-26. Gardner, Hon. Ohtttliah, statementat Chinook, 1-2, 4445 ; concludingstnte- ment, 55-56. Gcrhartz, Henry, statenient, 24-25. c;ilette, Frederick R., statement, 1fk-17. Ureenfleld, Hon. H., letter re St. Mary and Milk Rivers matter, 58-59. Irrigahle lands in Montrlntl. 18,33-34; in Slberta, 59-60,61, 67-88,69, 50. .Jetmen, Chris, statement, 80-83. Lefflngmell, F. S., statement, 76-78. Lethhridge hearing, 56-90. Magrath, C. A,, statement ut Lethbridge hearing, 57-59. Mnrias River project, 21-24, 35. Marnoch, G. R., statement, RH& 84. Meek, V., statement, 85-87. Newell, Z'. I$., statement, 35-44. Northern tributaries of Milk River, 27, 38; flow of, 51. Peterson, Lawrence, statement, 78-80. I'oweli, El. A., on interpretation of treaty, 53-53. Priority, 6, 11, 13, 46-47, 48,52, 54, 55. Hisinger, Iioi W., statenieut, 83-84. Sands, W. B., statement, 45-50. Southern tributaries of Milk River, flow of, 29-31, 4!3-51, 54. Storage reservoirs, 6, 10, 15, 25,26-27, 28, 36, 39, 4M3, 71, 72, 74, 75, 76-77, 78,82. Stranahan, F. E., statement, 19-20. Stratton, George, statement, 26-35. Tawney, Hon. James A., statement made at St. Paul hearing quoted, 62-63. Water rights, international, 5, 9, 52, 64. Waterton Itlkes, 66, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90. Ziebarth, A. W., statement, 18. ch 0